ORDER The petitioner in this petition is an Electricity Supply Company Limited represented by its Assistant Executive Engineer. It has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 9-6-2004 on I.A. No. I in Complaint No. 22 of 2004 vide Annexure-E on the file of the second respondent herein. Further, it has sought for a writ of prohibition preventing the second respondent from taking any further proceedings in Complaint No. 22 of2004 and/or pursuant to the order dated 9-6-2004 passed on LA. No. I in Complaint No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner-company in the instant writ petition is that, the first respondent herein had filed a complaint before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as 'Act' for short), seeking a direction to give power connection and to quash the back-billing charges of Rs. 18,018/- and compounding fee of Rs. 3,000/- and to pay the damages of Rs. 25,000/- towards the mental agony alleged to have been suffered by the complainant due to the alleged deficiency of service on the ground that, the complainant-first respondent herein has constructed a house on Plot No. 137 of Anandeshwar Nagar, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga and at the time of constructing the house, the complainant had obtained temporary power connection and thereafter the complainant applied for permanent power supply to the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company by its communication directed the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,750/- under various heads. Accordingly, the first respondent has deposited the aforesaid amount as per the sanctioned order. When things stood thus, the first respondent visited the office of the petitioner Company time and again and also sent legal notice dated 6-2-2003. The first respondent then visited the petitioner-company requesting supply of power connection. After receipt of the said legal notice, the officials of the petitioner-company made a surprise visit and found on the spot that, the first respondent had committed theft of electricity to the extent of 11 kilo watts and accordingly on the basis of the report submitted by the officials of the petitioner-Company, they issued back-billing demand of Rs. 18,018/- and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compounding fee and thereafter the petitioner-Company also registered the complaint and numbered the same as C.C. No. 50 of 2003 and the same is pending before the Competent Court. 18,018/- and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compounding fee and thereafter the petitioner-Company also registered the complaint and numbered the same as C.C. No. 50 of 2003 and the same is pending before the Competent Court. Be that as it may, the first respondent herein, filed the complaint before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and the same is numbered Complaint No. 22 of 2004. Along with the complaint, he also filed LA. No. I under Section 151 of the CPC seeking an interim order, directing the petitioner-company to give power connection to his house pending decision on the complaint filed by the first respondent. The said I.A. No. I filed by the first respondent in Complaint No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent came up for consideration on 9-6-2004. The second respondent-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gulbarga, after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner-company to give power connection to the house of the first respondent situated in Plot No. 137 at Anandeshwar Nagar, Gulbarga. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-E and seeking further prayer as stated supra, the petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. After careful evaluation of the entire material available in the file including the order passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-E, dated 9-6-2004 on I.A. No. I in Complaint No. 22 of 2004 and also the objection filed by the petitioner-Company before the second respondent vide Annexure-C, it is manifest on the face of the order passed by the second respondent that the second respondent has committed grave error and illegality in proceeding to entertain the application filed on the complaint filed by the first respondent and issuing interim direction to the petitioner-company to give power connection to the house of the first respondent. The reasons assigned for issuing such directions is that prima facie they were satisfied that the case on hand is not theft of electricity. The reasons assigned for issuing such directions is that prima facie they were satisfied that the case on hand is not theft of electricity. Further, the second respondent has not followed the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim v. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar and Others1 and also not made any sincere efforts to go through the relevant provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is crystal clear that its pursuance of any power conferred by/under this Act in respect of any action taken or to be taken, no Civil Court or any other authority has got jurisdiction. It is significant to note here itself that the second respondent has committed a glaring illegality. The second respondent-Forum presided over by some officers have rejected three complaints filed before them in Complaint Nos. 41,43 and 62 of2003 by its order dated 29-4-2004 following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and also with reference to the decision of the National Commission in paras 14 and 15 of the order, which is produced by the petitioner along with the instant writ petition vide Annexure-F. After careful perusal of Annexure-F, the order passed by the Consumer Forum dated 29-4-2004 rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant-the 1st respondent herein, an order has been passed on 9-6-2004 within a span of less than two months and that too without considering the stand taken by the petitioner-company in their objections produced vide Annexure-C, wherein, it has been categorically stated that, complainant/first respondent has committed theft of electricity which has been found on the inspection made by the Vigilance Squad of the petitioner-Company on 13-4-2003 and accordingly, they have issued a back-billing demand notice, directing the first respondent to pay the said sum within thirty days. Further, it is specifically pointed out that a criminal case was also booked in C.C. No. 50 of 2004 which is pending adjudication on the file of the Competent Court. As per Section 42.06 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01, if any person has committed theft by dishonest abstraction of electricity, the petitioner-company is entitled to disconnect the installation without notice and under Section 44.01, if any consumer is aggrieved by the supplementary claims, he can file an appeal before the concerned authority within 30 days. When the statute has provided a quick, inexpensive, effective and alternative remedy, the first respondent ought to have availed the said benefit provided under the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the face of the order that, the second respondent has committed grave error and material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The said order passed is one without jurisdiction. 5. Yet another reason as to why the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to vitiate is in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Karnataka Power Transmission C01poration Limited (now Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company), Bidar and Others v. Ishwaramma and Another1, wherein it has been declared that as per Section 145 of the Act, by implication would exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other forum on adjudicating the claim or the action of the petitioners, and has followed the judgment of the. Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Ashwani Kumar2 and also followed the decisions of this Court in the case of B. Narayana Swamy v. Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Electricity Board, Hoskote and Another3, and an identical view has been taken in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Others v. M/s. Oriental Timber Industries4, and declared that the impugned orders passed by the Consumer Forum cannot be sustained. In the instant case also, the second respondent has committed miscarriage of justice. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated supra and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the second respondent, due to lack of application of mind, proceeded to pass the order within a span of two months and that different orders have been passed, rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 8. The impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 9-6-2004 on I.A. No. I in Complaint No. 22 of 2004 vide Annexure-E is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that there is no impediment for the first respondent to redress his grievance before the Competent Authority, if he is so advised or if it is required, as envisaged under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01. In case the first respondent files an appeal before the Competent Authority of the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-company is directed to consider the same and dispose of, in accordance with law on top priority basis, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the first respondent.