ASHOK MENON, J.

1. Since common questions arise in these two Writ Appeals filed by the writ petitioner-KSEB challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.9976/2014 and ZWPC No.152/2014 respectively, both these appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment.

2. Both the Writ Petitions were filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) challenging the orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) as well as the appellate judgments of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The question pertains to jurisdiction of the CDRF to decide the matters which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act' for short). It is the submission for the KSEB that the CDRF does not have the jurisdiction to decide such matters and therefore, the orders of the CDRF as well as the appellate judgments of the State commission are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the KSEB has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) KLT SN 29 [Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd v. Anis Ahamed], AIR 2000 Ker. 250 [General Manager Telecom, Trivandrum v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum] and 2002 (2) KLT 641 [Malabar Palace v. Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission] in support of their contention challenging the maintainability on jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge relied on the decisions in 2011 (13) SCALE 584 [Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors] and 2012(4) KLT 46 (SC) [Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory] to dismiss the writs.

3. In both the appeals the KSEB consumers had approached the CDRF preferring complaints. The complaints were allowed by the CDRF. Against these orders, the KSEB preferred appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeals were disposed of by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the finding of the CDRF. The learned single Judge observed that the proper remedy of the KSEB should have been to prefer an appeal before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Instead, the KSEB preferred to file Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge observed that inasmuch as the KSEB had not resorted to the alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the judgments of the State Commission before the National Commission, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The learned Single Judge also relied on the decisions in Nivedita Sharma and Cicily Kallarackal ( supra) to hold that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to challenge the judgment of the State Commission and hence the Writ Petitions were dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissals of the Writ petitions, the KSEB is before us seeking reliefs and interference against the findings of the learned Single Judge.

5. Heard both sides.

6. KSEB was before the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the judgments of the Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission which had confirmed the orders of the CDRF allowing the complaints filed by the consumers of the KSEB. KSEB had filed objections before the CDRF contending that the Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints by the consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act against the action taken by the KSEB under Section 124 read with Sections 125 & 126 as well as under Section 135 of the Act for theft or unauthorised use of electricity. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (supra) in support of his argument. The facts in the above cited decision were also pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity by a consumer and in paragraphs 45 to 47, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:-

“45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum