S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. IN these appeals, as common question of law is involved and common judgment dated 13.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. THE only question involved in these cases is whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the consumer against the bill raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or against the action taken under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned common judgment held that -

(i) the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of the matters pertaining to supply of electricity against the Electricity Companies.

(ii) once the consumers are indulged in theft of electricity and for that theft bills under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been issued, the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers nor such forum can pass any interim order directing the Electricity Company to grant electricity connection.

(iii) Once the Electricity Company issues bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity, the consumer must approach the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act. It does not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.

(iv) As per the provisions contained in Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Special Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to theft under Section 135 of the Act and the Appellate Authority under Section 127 can entertain an appeal against the bill issued under Section 126 of the Act for unauthorized use of electricity and under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the consumer can file a complaint before the forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 and against the decision of the forum, an appeal can be filed before the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(7) of the Act. Thus, there are three different forums available for the consumers for ventilating their grievances. Hence, the consumer forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction to entertain such application.

3. SINCE the issue involved in these appeals is in a very narrow compass, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one, as mentioned hereunder.

4. THE case of one of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent - consumer had been provided with industrial connection for running flour mill. In course of a meter replacement drive, the meter of the consumer was replaced on 28.1.2008 and sent to the laboratory at Junagadh for joint laboratory inspection. The consumer was given notice to remain present for inspection on 24.7.2007, 31.7.2009 and 7.8.2009. Subsequently, the laboratory inspection was carried out in absence of the consumer on 4.9.2009, as according to the Electricity Company, the consumer did not remain present. It was found during the course of inspection that MMB seals and TC and TCC squares were tempered with. It was also noticed that the MMB seals had been refixed. Moreover, male and female parts of the TC had severe scratches. There were marks of scratches and of sparking on terminal block B-Phase current coil was found burnt. With this evidence, the Electricity Company made up a mind that it was a clear case of the consumer having used the electricity dishonestly, which is an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, a supplementary bills of Rs.66,969-98 ps. for power theft was served on the consumer as per the provisions of the Supply Code of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. An FIR was lodged at GEB Police Station, Rajkot at No. II 2594/2009 on 12.10.2009.

Being aggrieved with the said supple