Court held that a party cannot challenge a decision they accepted and are bound by, even if indirectly through an appeal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 order issued by the 1^st respondent Ombudsman.

2. I have heard Sri. Riji Rajendran, learned counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

3. The 3^rd respondent herein is a consumer, on whose complaint, the 2^nd respondent Forum issued the order at Ext.P4, finding fault with the petitioner Board. By the order at Ext.P4, the Board was directed to compensate the consumer with payment of Rs.25/- for each day of default. It may straight away be noticed that the order at Ext.P4 was not challenged by the petitioner. However, the consumer sought to challenge Ext.P4 order of the Forum by filing a further appeal before the Ombudsman. By the impugned order at Ext.P7, the Ombudsman upheld the directions contained in Ext.P4 order of CGRF. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner Board has approached this Court seeking to challenge Ext.P7 order of the

1^st respondent Ombudsman.

4. In my opinion, though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions with reference to the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P7 order, with specific reference to the retrospective application of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2015, by the Ombudsman as well as the CGRF, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed for more than one reason. Firstly, the order at Ext.P4 issued by the Forum was accepted by the petitioner Board. No further appeal was filed by the petitioner Board against Ext.P4. Secondly, with reference to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. M/s. Pooja Milk Foods(P) Ltd. Regd [ 2025 KER 69106 ], the order at Ext.P4 being one issued by the CGRF is binding upon the petitioner Board and the petitioner is not expected to challenge the findings contained in Ext.P4 order of CGRF.

5. Though the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since what is being challenged here is the order at Ext.P7 of the Ombudsman, and hence the writ petition can be filed, in my opinion, what the petitioner cannot do directly cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly.

In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere and the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/-