JUDGMENT In all these writ petitions common question of law has been raised on behalf of the petitioners, as such these matters are being taken up together. The question raised in these petitions is that whether the petitioners have a right to realise System Loading Charges (for short SLC) from the Industrial Consumers without their being, express approval in this regard from Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short UERC), and whether the Ombudsman (or Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in W.P. 1243 of 2008 (M/S) has erred in law in directing to the petitioners to refund the charges recovered as S.L.C., from them. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, and counter affidavits filed by the parties, in the writ petitions. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited (for short (UPCL) is a licensee, authorized to operate and maintain a distribution system in supplying electricity to the consumers, and its functioning is governed by the provisions contained in Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Act), Part IV of said Act contains provisions relating to distribution of Electricity. Sub section (5) of section 42 of the Act provides that the licensee shall establish a Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. Sub section (6) of section 42 of the Act provides that any consumer, who is aggrieved by non redressal of his grievances under Sub section (5), may make a representation before an authority known as Ombudsman, to be appointed by the State Commission. Chapter-VII of the Act deals with the tariff. Section 62 in the chapter provides that the State Commission shall determine tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Act for supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee, transmission of electricity; wheeling of electricity; and retail sale of electricity; respondent no. 2 in the writ petitions are consumers of UPCL within the meaning of section 2(15) of Electricity Act, 2003, who have entered into agreement with the petitioners. The Consumers (respondent no. 2 of the writ petitions) filed complaints before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum stating that in view of para 8.2.4.4 of tariff order dated 20th of September 2003 issued by UERC System Loading Charges (SLC), is not payable by the consumer. The Consumers (respondent no. 2 of the writ petitions) filed complaints before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum stating that in view of para 8.2.4.4 of tariff order dated 20th of September 2003 issued by UERC System Loading Charges (SLC), is not payable by the consumer. Respondent No. 2 of each writ petition pleaded before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum that the amount so charged by UPCL (petitioner) be refunded with interest. Said authority (except in writ petition no. 1243 of 2008 M/S) after hearing the parties rejected the complaints. Aggrieved by the orders of Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, respondent no. 2 of the writ petitions, made representations before Ombudsman (except in writ petition no. 1243 (M/S) of 2008). The Ombudsman vide impugned order dated 07.02.2007 allowed the representations and directed the petitioners to refund the charges recovered as SLC. As far as order dated 17.06.2008 passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Garhwal, challenged in writ petition no. 1243 (M/S) of 2008 is concerned, the complaint/petition of the Consumer was allowed by the Forum itself, which is challenged by the writ petitioner before this court. The petitioners have challenged the orders of the Ombudsman and (in the five writ petitions) and order of Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (in W.P. No. 1243 (M/S) of 2008), on the ground that System Loading Charges are part of the capital expenditure, as such there was no need for express direction from Regulatory Commission to realise it. It is further pleaded that prior to 08.09.2003 SLC was being charged from industrial Consumers as it was necessiated as each release of load, puts a burden on the power system which requires upgradation, augmentation and strengthening. Section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003, empowers UERC to approve the revenue requirement of the licensee (petitioners) in the process of laying down rates of supply of Electricity to the Consumers, but that does not include expenses of the licensee incurred in supplying electricity to the consumers. Though the provision is made under section 46 of the Act that the State Commission may, by regulation, authorize distribution licensee to charge expenses from the person, incurred in providing the electric line or supply, but UERC has failed to make any provision in this regard. Though the provision is made under section 46 of the Act that the State Commission may, by regulation, authorize distribution licensee to charge expenses from the person, incurred in providing the electric line or supply, but UERC has failed to make any provision in this regard. In view of the failure on the part of the UERC it is pleaded that the petitioners had committed no illegality in taking SLC from the industrial Consumers, as such the impugned order challenged in the writ petitions passed by Ombudsman is illegal and sought to be quashed. In WP no. 1243 (M/S) of 2008 order passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum on the same ground sought to be quashed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in the writ petitions, it has been pleaded that the award dated 07.02.2007 passed by Ombudsman suffers from no illegality. It is stated that in the counter affidavits that without their being authority from Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission who has power to fix the tariff, System Loading Charges could not have been recovered from the industrial Consumers. The powers conferred under section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003 are to be read with section 86 of the Act. An objection has also been raised in the counter affidavits that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under section 110 read with section 111 of Electricity Act, 2003, as such the writ petitions filed against the impugned order is not maintainable. In the counter affidavit filed in writ petition no. 127 (M/S) of 2007, it has also been pleaded that earlier petitioners (licensee) challenged tariff order dated 08.09.2003 by filing writ petition no. 941 of 2003, on the same was withdrawn as tariff order dated 20.09.2003 was implemented in which System Loading Charges was not allowed to be recovered. In the counter affidavit filed in writ petition no. 132 (M/S) of 2007, it has been further pleaded that System Loading Charges are part of the tariff, as such the same can not be realized as its stands included in the tariff. In writ petition no. 125 (M/S) of 2007, the respondent no. In the counter affidavit filed in writ petition no. 132 (M/S) of 2007, it has been further pleaded that System Loading Charges are part of the tariff, as such the same can not be realized as its stands included in the tariff. In writ petition no. 125 (M/S) of 2007, the respondent no. 2 in its counter affidavit has taken a further plea that vide para 7.2.3 of the tariff order of 2005 and 2006 it is clarified by Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission that no such charges are to be levied from the new consumers of any category at the time of giving new connection in substance in all the writ petitioners, it is pleaded by the respondents no. 2 that the recovery of SLC from the industrial consumers since 2003, is illegal. 5. Admittedly, petitioners Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) is a distribution licensee under section 14 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC) is a licensor. Section 45 of the Act provides that the price of power to be charged by a distribution licensee for supply of electricity by him shall be in accordance with such tariff fixed from time to time and conditions of his license. Sub section (2) of section 45 provided that the charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee shall be fixed in accordance with the method and the principles as may be specified by the concerned State Commission (i.e. in the present case (UERC). Sub section (5) of the section further provides that the charges fixed by the distribution licensee shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Regulations made in this behalf by the concerned State Commission. 6. Tariff order of 2003-2004 dated 08th of September 2003 was issued by UERC and the petitioners are bound by the directions issued their under. Under para 8.2.4.4, it is specifically provided that no System Loading Charges will be payable by the industrial consumers. As such in the opinion of this court impugned order passed by the Ombudsman (and the order passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in writ petition no. 1243 (M/S) of 2008) in favour of the industrial Consumers to refund the recovered amount, suffers from no illegality. 7. As such in the opinion of this court impugned order passed by the Ombudsman (and the order passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in writ petition no. 1243 (M/S) of 2008) in favour of the industrial Consumers to refund the recovered amount, suffers from no illegality. 7. On behalf of the petitioners, attention of this court is drawn to Sub section (3) of section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to consumer’s load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is required. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the UERC has failed to discharge its obligation under said clause of section 62 and the Commission has failed to take note of difficulty arisen in issuing industrial connection on the load of the power supply. However, this court finds little substance in the argument. Neither UERC is impleaded as a party in these writ petitions, by the petitioners nor any direction is sought against it challenging the condition mention in para 8.2.4.4. which provides that no System Loading Charges will be payable by the industrial consumers. It is pertinent to mention here that tariff order shows in Table 2.2 relevant factors has been taken into consideration before fixing the charges recoverable from the consumers. Capital outlay has also been kept in mind as is apparent from table no. 2.16. In para 6.4.5.3 of the tariff order of 2003-2004 the UERC has specifically discussed issue relating to System Loading Charges and in substance not agreed to the request of the petitioners on the point. However, this court finds the provision contained in Sub section (6) of section 62 is of no help to the petitioners. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to hold that “Tariff” includes “SLC”. The provisions relating to Ombudsman, are contained in Sub section (6) and Sub section (7) of section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to hold that “Tariff” includes “SLC”. The provisions relating to Ombudsman, are contained in Sub section (6) and Sub section (7) of section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sub section (6) of section 42 provides that any Consumer who is aggrieved by non redressal of his grievances under Sub section (5), may make representation for redressal of his grievances to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission. Sub section (7) of the section provides that the Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the Consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission. The above two provisions clearly indicate that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman relates to the complaints which are to be made by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, appointed under Sub section (5) of Section 42. The word “Complaint” is defined in clause (f) of Regulations 2 of the Regulations framed by Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission, which provides that “Complaint” means the letter or application filed with the Forum seeking redressal of grievances concerning the Supply of electricity, new connection or the services rendered by the Distribution Licensee and cases where licensee has charged price in excess of price fixed by the Commission or has recovered the expenses incurred in excess of charges approved by the Commission in providing any electric line or electric plant. Clause (f) of Regulations 2 of the Regulations further provides as to what matters could not constitute a complaint. (i) Unauthorized use of electricity (section 126 of the Act). (ii) Offences and penalties (section 135 to 139 of the Act). (iii) Accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity (section 161 of the Act). (iv) Recovery of arrears where the bill amount is not disputed. The above provisions make it clear that the present dispute of refund on System Loading Charges recovered by the licensee from the consumer is covered under the definition of complaint. Lastly on behalf of the petitioners, attention of this court is drawn to the case of LML Limited v/s State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 3SCC page 128 in which the Apex court has directed the Electricity Regulatory Commission of Uttar Pradesh to take a decision on the request of alteration of tariff by the licensee. Lastly on behalf of the petitioners, attention of this court is drawn to the case of LML Limited v/s State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 3SCC page 128 in which the Apex court has directed the Electricity Regulatory Commission of Uttar Pradesh to take a decision on the request of alteration of tariff by the licensee. However, on the basis of said judgment in this case no directions could be made to UERC as it has not being impleaded as a party. Apart from this, though the UERC is required to take decision on the request made by the distribution licensee, but the amount which has already been taken by the licensee from the Consumer without approval from the UERC, is liable to be refunded to the Consumers. 9. For the reasons as discussed above all the six writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, and the impugned order need no interference. Accordingly, all the six petitions WPMS No. 125 of 2007, WPMS No. 126 of 2007, WPMS No. 127 of 2007, WPMS No. 132 of 2007, WPMS No. 133 of 2007 and WPMS No. 1243 of 2008, are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.