Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 20.03.2007 (P-2) passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the petitioner-Nigam and the order dated 17.04.2007(P-3) rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner-Nigam. A further prayer for quashing order dated 21.09.2007 (P-4) has also been made which is passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana holding that the officers of the petitioner-Nigam namely, Sh. Shiv Kumar LM, Sh. Krishan Lal Meter Reader & Sh. Sant Kumar, ALM are responsible for planting the case of theft on the consumer-respondent No. 4 due to their malafide intention. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the consumer-Respondent No. 4 Sh. Som Nath was provided with a tube- well electric connection bearing account No. MK2-29 for horticulture in the month of September 2004. The petitioner-Nigam has asserted that on raid of his premises on 6.06.2006 it was found that the meter installed by it was tampered with to abstract energy illegally and dishonestly by consumer-respondent No. 4, because it was found that all the four numbers firm seals were tampered with. The face wire of all the four numbers firms seals existing on the meter were found cut and re-affixed with adhesive. Accordingly, then meter was removed and a case of theft of energy was made out. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Op), Shahzadpur imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,20,000/- on the consumer- respondent No. 4. The petitioner-Nigam filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer (Operation)-respondent No. 3 who rejected the same vide order dated 21.11.2006. The Chief Engineer while deciding the appeal has also found the officers of the Petitioner-Nigam responsible which is evident from the perusal of the concluding paras I-VI which read thus: I. The meter installed at the premises of the appellant is found to be tampered and usage of energy through ibid meter tantamount to the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135 of EA-2003 enforced by UHBVN sales circular No. U-2/2006 and its amendments thereof. II. The initial/authorized meter of the appellant i.e., Sh. Som Nath was not available at site and was changed at the site with Avon Make Meter without issuing of meter change order by the S/Divn. II. The initial/authorized meter of the appellant i.e., Sh. Som Nath was not available at site and was changed at the site with Avon Make Meter without issuing of meter change order by the S/Divn. In addition to the lapse of the concerned officials, the consumer cannot be ruled out of his responsibility for illegal replacement of energy meter as the responsibility of safe custody of the meter lies with consumer. III. The consumption pattern of the consumer indicated the inaccurate recording of the meter reading of the premises. The concerned meter reader, Sh. Krishan Kumar has recorded fictitious reading of the consumer A/c No. MK2-29 and has not reported regarding replacement of authorised/initial meter by illegal meter. IV. Similarly, Sh. Shiv Ram, ALM, working as meter reader is responsible for not reporting regarding replacement of meter of Sh. Dharam Singh, Village Khurd A/c No. LK3-93. V. The above mentioned arguments & representation of the appellant and officials taken on record confirm the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135 of EA-2003 as enforced by S.C. No. U-2/2005 and its amendments thereof at the premises of the appellant, Sh. Som Nath for which the appellant Sh. Som Nath and Nigams officials, Sh. Shiv Kumar, LM, Sh. Krishan Lal, Meter Reader & Sh. Sant Kumar, ALM are responsible and found to be involved in the act of theft of electricity. VI. In view of the above, the appellant cannot be absolved of his duties & responsibilities as a Consumer and his representation cannot be considered for giving any relief or refund of amount of compounding which has already been deposited by him. The concerned officials, Sh. Shiv Kumar, LM, Sh. Krishan Kumar, MR & Sh. Sant Ram, ALM are liable for necessary disciplinary action for the deliberate lapses in performing their official responsibilities. 3. The consumer-respondent No. 4 then filed a complaint before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (for brevity to be referred as Consumer Forum) under Regulation 7 of Haryana Electricity Regulation Commission (Guidelines) for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of the Grievances of the Consumers) and (Electricity ombudsman), Regulations 2004 (for brevity the Regulation) which have been framed under Section 181 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Act of 2003 (for brevity the Act). The Forum while directing the re-investigation observed in para 2.2 that the Chief Engineer in his order dated 21.11.2006 (P-1) could not give justice to the consumer-respondent No. 4 by upholding the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer. According to the Forum the Chief Engineer shielded mischievous official Sh. Shiv Kumar LM who had been replacing existing meters with unauthorized meters. The Forum then recorded its findings in para 3.1 and 3.2 which are as under: 3.1 The original healthy electronic meter installed at the premises was removed by Shiv Kumar L/man without MCO & the meter installed was one which was illegally removed from another premises of Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd. 3.2 The appellate authority has not gone into the details of the case and passed order as under: In addition the lapse of the concerned official, the consumer cannot be ruled out of his responsibility for illegal replacement of energy meter as the responsibility of safe custody of meter lies with the consumer. Once the meter is removed & installed by a Lineman Incharge of the area, the consumer cannot object or stop him from doing so. The question here is not the safe custody of the meter but the tampering of a meter by the authorized employee of the Nigam. Had the original meter of the consumer been stolen, the deptt. could fix responsibility of the consumer. But here the meter has been replaced by the Lineman Incharge of the area with a meter removed from another premises of Sh. Dharam Singh of village, Khurd in an unauthorised manner. It is not possible to seal such a meter after removal without tampering with the seals of meter cover. As a matter of fact an electronic meter with push type MCA can not be removed from a premises without tampering with MCB seal. 4. The petitioner-Nigam instead of complying with the direction for re- investigation filed a review petition which was dismissed on 17.04.2007 (P-3) by the Forum. The Forum clarified that it has decided the case of the consumer respondent No. 4 on 20.3.2007 by disposing of his complaint who has been a consumer of electricity on the point of deficiency of service in exercise of power conferred by Section 181 read with Sub-section 5 to 8 of Section 42 of the Act. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. 5. The consumer-respondent No. 4 challenged the order of the Forum before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana by filing an appeal under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. The Electricity Ombudsman after noticing various pleas taken by the consumer-respondent No. 4 and the petitioner-Nigam recorded its conclusion under heading Order which reads as under: During the course of hearing when the status report of the original meter removed from the connection of Sh. Som Nath was asked from the respondents they stated that the whereabouts of the meter removed are not known. The meter removed from the premises of a consumer is required to be taken on the record of the Sub Division, which has not been done in the present case. No FIR was lodged with the police about removal of meter from the premises of appellant. This proves deficiency of service on the part of Nigam officials due to their mala fide intentions. In view of facts mentioned above, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Lineman, Sh. Krishan Kumar, Meter Reader and Sh. Sant Lal, ALM are responsible for planting the case of theft on the consumer Sh. Som Nath due to their mala fide intentions, as they replaced the existing healthy meter of the appellant without any order of SDO with a meter removed illegally from the premises of Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd. In this way a meter unauthorisedely removed from the Tubewell of Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd was fixed on the premises of the appellant. I therefore, order that the penalty amounting to Rs. 3.20 lacs should be jointly and severally recovered from all four persons i.e. Sh. Som Nath, appellant and Nigam officials Sh. Shiv Kumar Lineman, Sh. Krishan Kumar Meter Reader and Sh. Sant Lal ALM. Thus each one of them has to share penalty amount equally @ Rs. 80,000/- each. Since the penalty amount of Rs. 3.20 lacs has already been deposited by Sh. Som Nath, appellant, the penalty amount of Rs. 80,000/- each be recovered from Sh. Shiv Kumar Lineman, Sh. Krishan Kumar Meter Reader and Sh. Sant Lal ALM. Hence excess amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- be refunded to the appellant Sh. Som Nath. Compliance of the orders be made within one month from the receipt of the orders. 6 To our surprise the order has now been challenged by the petitioner- Nigam. Shiv Kumar Lineman, Sh. Krishan Kumar Meter Reader and Sh. Sant Lal ALM. Hence excess amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- be refunded to the appellant Sh. Som Nath. Compliance of the orders be made within one month from the receipt of the orders. 6 To our surprise the order has now been challenged by the petitioner- Nigam. It was out of the aforementioned anxiety that at the outset we asked learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Malik as to how the petitioner-Nigam is aggrieved by orders dated 20.03.2007 (P-2) and 21.09.2007 (P-4) because the Electricity Ombudsman has apportioned the liability equally between the four persons viz., the consumer-respondent No. 4, Shiv Kumar LM, Krishan Kumar MR and Sant Lal ALM. There is nothing in the order which adversely affects the rights of the petitioner-Nigam. The order in fact protects its rights of recovering the amount albeit from its own officers who have been found guilty of serious lapses. It is further evident from extracts of order dated 21.11.2006 (P-1) passed by the Chief Engineer that Sarvshri Shiv Kumar LM, Krishan Kumar Meter Reader and Sant Lal ALM are liable for necessary disciplinary action for the deliberate lapses in performing their official responsibilities. We also pointed out to Mr. Malik that similar observations have been made by the Forum in the concluding para 3.1 and 3.2 which have already been extracted in the preceding portion of this judgment. The petitioner-Nigam instead of complying with the direction issued by the Forum filed a review petition which was dismissed on 17.04.2007 (P-3). Even the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman shows that how the meter has been removed illegally from the premises of a farmer Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd without any authority and Sarvshri Shiv Kumar LM, Krishan Kumar Meter Reader and Sant Lal ALM. responsible for planting case of theft on the consumer-respondent No. 4. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner-Nigam which is Government body has filed the instant petition which obviously shows that it wishes to shield such officers/officials who have been found guilty of various illegal, fraudulent and corrupt activities by misusing the property of the petitioner-Nigam. We further find that it is sheer misuse of the process of the Court by overlooking the hapless and harassed consumer and farmer. We further find that it is sheer misuse of the process of the Court by overlooking the hapless and harassed consumer and farmer. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner-Nigam lacks complete locus standi to approach this Court because it cannot be regarded as aggrieved party. For filing such a frivolous petition, we impose an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner-Nigam which shall be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana. 7. Before parting with the judgment, we issue direction to the Managing Director of the petitioner-Nigam to hold an enquiry with the object of finding out as to which of the officer had taken the decision to file this petition. Whosoever is found responsible for taking the decision to file the instant petition, recovery of Rs. 50,000/- shall be effected from that officer or officers. 8. We further direct that the petitioner-Nigam shall initiate follow-up action against the officers who have been found responsible for planting the case of theft on consumer-respondent No. 4 by illegally removing his healthy meter and replacing it by the meter illegally removed from the premises of Dharam Singh of village Khurd. The writ petition stands disposed of.