JUDGMENT 1. THE Court : THE petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 15, 2010 is alleging that CESC has failed and neglected to give her electricity in the discharge of its obligation under s.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. THE petitioner applied for electricity to a portion of 85/15, Narkeldanga North Road, Kolkata 700011 claiming that she was in occupation of the specified portion as a tenant therein. By a letter dated March 31, 2010 (at p.15) the District Engineer, Calcutta North District of CESC Limited informed the petitioner as follows: "Pursuant to receiving your application vide Annexure 'A' for obtaining estimate for providing supply of electricity at the above and our subsequent inspection, we regret our inability to accede to your request for separate metered supply as the existing meter from which you are getting supply is of adequate capacity to cater to your load requirement as asked for. Please note that arrangements will be made to refund the Earnest Money deposited by you after deducting 25% from the same in terms of Clause 15 of the Regulation No.22 of the Learned West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission if we do not receive from you any communication within 45 days from the date of this letter without further reference to you." 3. COUNSEL for CESC submits that in view of the provisions of Reg.15 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections) Regulation, 2005 the petitioner's remedy, if any, was in the office of the Ombudsman. COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is without electricity. Correctness of this submission is disputed by counsel for CESC who says that through the meter having adequate capacity all the tenants in the premises can comfortably enjoy electricity. His further submission is that the petitioner has been enjoying electricity. 4. THE question is whether the petitioner's remedy, if any, was in the office of the Ombudsman. Correctness of this submission is disputed by counsel for CESC who says that through the meter having adequate capacity all the tenants in the premises can comfortably enjoy electricity. His further submission is that the petitioner has been enjoying electricity. 4. THE question is whether the petitioner's remedy, if any, was in the office of the Ombudsman. Sub-sections (6) and (7) of s.42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provide that any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub- s.(5) of s.42, may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission; and 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. Sub-section (5) of s.42 provides that every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of r.7 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 provide that the Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission under sub- s.(6) of s.42 of the Act shall be such person as the State Commission may decide from time to time; and that the Ombudsman shall consider the representations of the consumers consistent with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Regulations made thereunder or general orders or directions given by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission in this regard before settling their grievances. Regulation 15 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections) Regulation, 2005 provides that if any applicant or intending consumer or consumer submits any application for new connection with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong, inaccurate, false statements, his application will be liable to be rejected under the provision of the Act, or the Regulations made thereunder, and 25% of payments, deposits, if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of the Regulations, shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest of the charges is refunded to him; that it will be the onus of the applicant to prove that an application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the load; and that any dispute in this regard is to be settled in the office of the Ombudsman. 5. IN this case it is evident from the decision of CESC that it rejected the petitioner's application referring to the provisions of Reg.15 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections) Regulation, 2005. Under the circumstances and in view of the specific provisions of cl.15, in my opinion, the petitioner's remedy, if any, was only in the office of the Ombudsman. She has approached the High Court under art.226 without first approaching the Ombudsman. There is no reason to permit her to bypass the statutory forum. 6. FOR these reasons, the petition is dismissed. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from approaching the Ombudsman for necessary relief. No costs.