J. B. PARDIWALA, J. In this appeal, the appellant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. challenges judgment and order dated 16-8-2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2010, whereby learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by relegating the appellant to avail of alternative remedy of preferring appeal before the State Consumers Commission against the order passed by Consumer Forum, Bhuj.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarized as under :

2.1. Appellant herein released one electric connection in favour of respondent No. 2 bearing Consumer No. 38202-3027-7. The inspection squad of the appellant-Company visited the premises for the purpose of inspection and found some tampering with the• meter. The meter was sent to the laboratory for the inspection. Appellant issued notice dated 5-7-2007 to respondent No. 2 to remain present in the laboratory at the time of testing of the meter. However, respondent No. 2 failed to turn up for the said purpose. Once again, a notice was issued on 4-8-2007; even on that date, respondent No. 2 failed to turn up and did not remain present. Thereafter, on 22-10-2007, inspection was carried out of the meter in presence of respondent No. 2 and it was found that led seal wire was re-fixed. It was also found that six pieces of match box were inserted in the meter. There was space between the meter gear assembly and disc. By doing this, the disc could move but the digits of the counter would not move and proper reading of the meter would not take place. As a result of which, due to overload the meter coil got burnt. At the end of the inspection, it was concluded that the meter was tampered from inside and the electric connection was tampered in such a way that the correct consumption of the electricity is not recorded.

2.2. Appellant herein issued bill to respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 1,23,365-01 ps. dated 20-12-2007. Respondent No. 2 represented before the appellant that there is a mistake in the bill, and therefore, once again a revised bill of Rs. 1,21,343-62 ps. was issued to the respondent No. 2 along with letter dated 31-12-2007.

2.3. It appears that respondent No. 2 approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhuj at Kutch by filing Complaint No. 234 of 2007 and prayed for quashing and setting aside of the bill issued to respondent No. 2 by the appellant. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum; District Kutch at Bhuj, vide order dated 8-2-2010, partly allowed the complaint and quashed and set aside the bill issued under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further directed the appellant herein to issue revised bill under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2.4. Record reveals that the appellant herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kutch at Bhuj, in Complaint No. 234 of 2007 preferred Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2010 before this Court contending that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in cases of theft of electricity under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that only the Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.

2.5. It appears that learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 16-8-2010, disposed of the petition without going into merits relegating the appellant to avail of the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the State Forum under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of learned Single Judge. the appellant have preferred this present appeal.

3. We have heard learned Counsel, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the appellant Company and Mr. Nalin Thakkar for respondent No. 2-Consumer.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the petition only on the ground that in cases of theft of electricity