J U D G M E N T

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

This writ petition is filed by the Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board I) challenging Ext. P2 order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in complaint No.203 of 2020 filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein it was found that the complainant is not liable to pay an amount of Rs.45,476/- demanded by the Kerala State Electricity Board and that the grievance raised by the complainant is liable to be considered by the State Electricity Ombudsman, constituted as per the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005.

II) to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman dated 17.03.2022 whereby the monthly bill of Rs. 45,476/- dated 19.10.2020 issued to the complainant / 3rd respondent is quashed and KSEB was directed to prepare a revised bill taking the average of the three bi-monthly consumptions recorded in the meter from 19.10.2020 to 19.04.2021 and to issue a revised bill after adjusting the amount remitted to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of the order. It was also directed that if the amount remitted is excess, that shall be adjusted in the future bills.

2. The paramount contention advanced by the Board is that Ext.

P2 order has been issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta on an incorrect understanding of the legal framework for redressal of consumer grievances and therefore the order cannot be sustained.

3. That apart, it is submitted that as electricity supply is an essential, extensive and extremely technical field of operation, the number and nature of consumer grievances mandates that a systematic hierarchy for redressal is in place. However, in utter ignorance of the provisions of law, the Upa Lok Ayukta has misstated that the Electricity Ombudsman, the 2nd respondent, is the authority for enquiry and resolution of consumer grievances, and incorrectly directed the 3rd respondent / the complainant to approach the Electricity Ombudsman. That apart, it is submitted that the Upa Lok Ayukta has no authority to confer jurisdiction to consider a complaint in violation of the established statutory procedure.

4. Further, Ext. P5 order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman is also challenged contending that the Electricity Ombudsman has violated the hierarchical scheme provided for redressal of consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, 2003. Furthermore, it is stated that a conjoint reading of Sections 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 with Regulations 2(1)(f), 19(a) and 22(1)(a) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2005’ for brevity) clearly says that an aggrieved consumer must first approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Regulations 2005, and if his grievance subsists, he is entitled to approach the Electricity Ombudsman.

5. Therefore the sum and substance of the contention is that the Electricity Ombudsman has usurped the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by considering the complaint of the 3rd respondent. Therefore it is submitted that this court is to interfere in and set aside Ext. P2 order of the Upa Lok Ayukta and Ext. P5 order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Riji Rajendran and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

7. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any interference is required with respect to the impugned orders. 8. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that the Upa Lok Ayukta erred in directing the complainant to approach the Electricity Ombudsman since the Regulations, 2005 prescribes a clear procedure for redressing the grievances of any excess bill through a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted as per Regulations, 2005. For the said reason it