V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. , in short hereinafter called as Corporation for brevity in this order has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14-7-1999 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. 561/1997 urging various facts and legal contentions. ( 2 ) THE brief necessary facts for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the Corporation and the first respondent in person are stated as hereunder :the first respondent is a Consumer had filed complaint before the District Redressal Forum under the provisions of S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in short called as C. P. Act for issuance of a direction to the Corporation by the Forum to refund the interest amount collected from him for the period from 27-3-1991 to 28-4-1992 and to refund the excess amount collected by the Corporation during the period from 27-3-1991 to 28-4-1992 on the alleged ground that the meter was defective and further claimed for awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for causing mental agony and physical exertion to the first respondent and further claiming of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the Corporation for the alleged infringement of his rights to utilise electricity and also causing injury to his mind and reputation in the public at large. It is stated by the first respondent that he is the consumer as defined under the provisions of Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations of 1988 and having A. E. H. power supply installation to his residence. It is alleged in the complaint that with effect from 27-3-1991 onwards the meter installed in his house by the Corporation was defective inasmuch as the disc with red mark in the meter was running six times per minute. Therefore, he did not pay the electrical bills from 27-3-1991 to 6-8-1991 towards the power consumption charges of his A. E. H. power installation and the Corporation did not issue him monthly electricity bills for the months of April to August, 1991. It is contended by the first respondent that without issuance of 7 days clear notice as required under Regulation No. 30. It is contended by the first respondent that without issuance of 7 days clear notice as required under Regulation No. 30. 06 of the Regulations for payment of the power consumption charges before disconnection, his A. E. H. power supply installation was disconnected by the officials of the Corporation and, therefore, the first respondent has suffered a great lot without power supply to his house for the period from 6-8-1991 to 10-8-1991. It is further stated that despite the first respondent writing letters to the Corporation, for restoration of power supply there was no response, and he had also got issued a notice under S. 80, Cr. P. C. , on 29-5-1992. It is further stated the defective meter was replaced by the Corporation on 28-4-1992 and same was sent for Meter Testing Division Laboratory for its inspection. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the first respondent that after conversion of the installation to A. E. H. to his residence, a good meter was fixed on 27-3-1991 in his house. The initial reading of the meter was "0000. " After the installation of the new meter it was showed consumption of 956 units as on 5-7-1991. The initial bill was issued to him was for only Rs. 27/- by the Corporation as fixed charges for the month of June, 1991 and later for the month of July, 1991 the bill was issued for Rs. 824/- towards consumption of 956 units including the arrears of Rs. 27/- during the month of August, 1991. It is stated by the Corporation that during the month of August, 1991 the meter reading of the first respondent's installation could not be taken as his house was door locked at the time of recording the meter for issuance of the consumption of bill. Therefore, the bill for fixed charges along with Rs. 851 and interest of Rs. 17/- was charged and the bill was issued by the Corporation. But however the first respondent paid only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 8-8-1991 against the said bill to the Corporation. Since the first respondent failed to pay the arrears, the installation to his residence was disconnected on 6-8-1991. Again the demand bill for Rs. 600/- in the month of September, 1991 was issued to the first respondent, complainant. He had paid only Rs. 200/- on 18-9-1991. 3,000/- on 8-8-1991 against the said bill to the Corporation. Since the first respondent failed to pay the arrears, the installation to his residence was disconnected on 6-8-1991. Again the demand bill for Rs. 600/- in the month of September, 1991 was issued to the first respondent, complainant. He had paid only Rs. 200/- on 18-9-1991. Again in the month of October, 1991 the consumption of power recorded was 866 units and the bill for a sum of Rs. 1148/- inclusive of the arrears was served upon the first respondent. He had paid only Rs. 100/- against that bill. It is stated, in the objection statement filed by the Corporation before the District Forum that the first respondent was in the habit of making part payment towards the heavy consumption bills, and it is further stated that during the periodical inspection of the meter, it was found in good condition, working properly, and further stated a bill for a sum of Rs. 1208/- was issued to the first respondent-complainant, but he paid only Rs. 200/- on 21-12-1991. It is stated that it is not because of the defective meter, but at the request of the first respondent it was replaced. The consumption of power from the month of January, 1992 to April, 1992 varied from 200 units to 240 units, payment towards consumption was not made by him. Therefore, the Corporation prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed by the first respondent. ( 4 ) IT is noticed from the impugned order challenged in this petition that 7 documents were produced by the first respondent and marked the same as Ex. C. 1 to C. 7. On examination of the case of the parties, the, Consumer Forum rejected the complaint of the first respondent vide its order dated 3-7-1997, against which order the first respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent, same was numbered in Appeal No. 561/1997. The State Consumer Forum after hearing the rival, contentions of the parties formulated the points for its consideration at paragraph 5 and it has passed the impugned order incorporating the definition of S. 2 (1) (g), C. P. Act affirming the findings recorded by the District Consumer Forum in its order by giving its reasons at paragraph 9 in the impugned order. The other point Nos. The other point Nos. 2 and 3 framed by it are considered at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the impugned order examining the contentions of the parties and answered the points formulated by it as to "whether the Corporation was justified in disconnecting the installation of the first respondent's house on 6-8-1991?" The justification, which was sought to be made by the Corporation was regarding non-payment of dues to the extent of Rs. 851/- by the first respondent towards power consumption charges. The State Consumer Forum with reference to the provision of S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the provisions under Regulation No. 30. 06 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, which provision provides 7 clear days notice to be given to the consumer before disconnecting the installation for non-payment of power supply charges. After interpretation of the provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations referred to above at paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the State Forum has recorded its reasons not accepting the contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the stipulation of a condition on the reverse side of the electricity bill that, if the bill is not paid by the consumer within the time fixed, the Board is competent to disconnect installation, since the said stipulation itself should be construed as giving 7 days notice. With reference to the said contention the finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum at paragraph 9 is extracted in the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the findings in the order of the District Forum with reference to the 7 clear days notice to be issued to the consumer by the Corporation as required under Regulation No. 30. 06, the State Consumer Forum has held that it cannot find an easy way printing a stipulation on the reverse side of the bill, which cannot dispense with issuance of 7 days notice to the consumer calling upon him to pay the consumption charges otherwise the installation would be disconnected. The said reasoning portion at paragraph 13 of the impugned order is not correct as the same is not tenable in law. The said reasoning portion at paragraph 13 of the impugned order is not correct as the same is not tenable in law. But, however, both the District Consumer Forum as well as the State Consumer Forum have overlooked the fact that the Board did not exercise its right and disconnect the power supply to the first respondent's-house after expiry of 7 days notice of the last bill issued and served upon him. The Corporation did not disconnect within 7 days after expiry of 7 days from the date of non-payment of the consumption charges towards the installation of the first respondent's-house including the arrears due to it. The legal contention urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the Corporation contending that the first respondent did not pay the consumption charges due for the month of July, 1991 the power supply was disconnected on 6-8-1991, this aspect of the case is not considered by the State Consumer Forum. In this regard, the counsel for the Corporation was directed to produce the office copy of the demand bill for the month of July, 1991, for having issued and served upon the first respondent prior to disconnecting the power supply to his house. Despite granting time to the learned counsel for the Corporation, he did not produce the same. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding on the action taken by the Corporation in disconnecting the power supply to the installation of the first respondent on 6-8-1991 for non-payment of the arrears of consumption bill payable for the month of July, 1991 was not issued and served. Though the District Consumer Forum has not recorded a finding considering this relevant aspect of the matter on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Regulation referred to above. The second respondent-State Consumer Forum has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Act and Regulations. It has held that apart from the condition stipulated on the overleaf of the bill, the Corporation was required to issue a separate notice to the consumer calling upon him to pay consumption charges within 7 days failing which power supply would be disconnected. The second respondent-State Consumer Forum has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Act and Regulations. It has held that apart from the condition stipulated on the overleaf of the bill, the Corporation was required to issue a separate notice to the consumer calling upon him to pay consumption charges within 7 days failing which power supply would be disconnected. This finding of the forum is wholly untenable in law as the same is not only opposed to the provisions of the Act and Regulations referred to supra but it is impracticable for issuing separate 7 clear days notice apart from the demand bill on the overleaf it will be clearly mentioned that if the consumer does not pay consumption charges, power supply will be disconnected. Having regard to the fact 87 lakhs of consumers are there in the Karnataka State and if such interpretation to the Regulation No. 30. 06 of the K. E. S. R. of 1988 is accepted it leads to absurdity for the reason that it is practically impossible to comply with the Regulation 30. 06 by the Corporation before taking further action of disconnecting the power supply to the consumers. Therefore, the reasons assigned at paragraph 13 of the impugned order by the State Consumer Forum with regard to the interpretation of the Regulation No. 30. 06 is not legal and valid in law. But, this Court has supplied the reasons stated supra in support of the order of the State Consumer Forum for awarding the compensation to the first respondent for disconnecting the power supply for 4 days to his residence. The compensation awarded by the State Consumer Forum will not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India eventhough the reasons assigned by it are not tenable in law for the reason that the Corporation did not produce the bill for the month of July, 1991 to show that the Corporation had given required notice of disconnection of power supply to the house of the first respondent. With the abovesaid observation and clarification the order of the State Consumer Forum with regard to the interpretation of the provisions under S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 and Regulation No. 30. With the abovesaid observation and clarification the order of the State Consumer Forum with regard to the interpretation of the provisions under S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 and Regulation No. 30. 06 of the Regulations awarding the compensation by the State Consumer Forum in favour of the first respondent is not interfered with in this writ petition. ( 6 ) WITH the abovesaid observations and clarification to the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, no costs are awarded. --- *** --- .