The consumer forum lacks jurisdiction over unauthorized electricity assessments, which must be contested under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, with proper adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this review petition, the Petitioner seeks a review of the order dated 06.08.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.12899 of 2024.

2. The Opposite Parties had filed W.P.(C) No.12899 of 2024, challenging the order dated 27.02.2024, passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissioner, Sambalpur in C.C. Case No.189 of 2023.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) An Assessing Officer, in the presence of the Petitioner, inspected the premises on 12.05.2022, where the Petitioner was found consuming power by bypassing the meter.

(ii) Pursuant to this, the Assessing Officer, exercising powers under Section 126 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, issued a provisional assessment order on 13.05.2022, inviting objections. The Petitioner subsequently filed his objection.

(iii) After considering the objection, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on 14.06.2022, quantifying the assessed amount at Rs. 35,634/-.

(iv) The Review Petitioner, admitting his guilt of unauthorized power consumption, furnished an undertaking before the Assessing Officer, committing not to engage in unauthorized consumption or theft of power in the future. Consequently, he was allowed to pay the assessed amount in installments.

(v) In pursuance of this undertaking, the Review Petitioner made a part payment of Rs. 12,000/- towards the final assessed amount.

(vi) After making this partial payment, the Review Petitioner filed C.C. No. 189/2023 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur, seeking a refund of the deposited amount.

(vii) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur, directed a refund of the Rs. 12,000/- along with 7% interest.

(viii) Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Parties preferred W.P.(C) No.12899 of 2024 before this Court, challenging the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur, on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising from an assessment proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(ix) The Petitioner failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. This Court, vide order dated 06.08.2024, held that since the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur, had entertained a dispute arising from an assessment proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it was contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others v. Anis Ahmad, (2013) 8 SCC 49, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Lloyd Steel Industries Ltd. , AIR 2008 SC 1042 and Jharkhand State Electricity Board v. Anwar Ali , (2007) 11 SCC 753 . Finding that the order was passed without jurisdiction, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(x) Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has filed the present review petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner contended that the right to seek a review of an ex parte order passed in a writ petition is an essential facet of natural justice. An ex parte order, if passed without affording a fair opportunity to the affected party, can be challenged through a review petition on the grounds of violation of natural justice, manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and prejudice caused to the a