Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order dated July 12, 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Case No.RC/31/2010 arising out of an interim order dated February 19, 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur in Consumer Case No.14 of 2010. Being dissatisfied with the order of restoration of electric connection to the premises of the complainant / opposite party herein and the order not to disconnect it until further order, the petitioner preferred the said revision petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (henceforth shall be called as State Commission). On February 19, 2010, the District Forum directed the petitioner to restore electric connection and by the subsequent order dated February 24, 2010, the Forum has directed the petitioner to appear in person before the Forum and to file a show-cause as to why the order of the learned Forum has not been complied with till date. Being aggrieved by such orders, the petitioner has come up with this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the opposite party is a consumer of electricity under the petitioner. He is running a factory by taking electricity from the petitioner in respect of the premises as described in the petition of complaint of the complainant / opposite party herein. He has specifically stated that he has been paying electric bills regularly and has been enjoying electricity uninterruptedly. There is no dispute that the electric connection of the complainant / opposite party herein has been disconnected by the petitioner and for that reason, the complainant / opposite party herein had lodged a complaint before the District Forum for restoration of the electric connection. Mr. Srijan Nayak appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in complying with the orders of the Forum directing him to appear before the learned Forum. But the question is, the said proceeding before the Forum is not maintainable at all. He has contended that in the instant case, the opposite party committed theft of electrical energy by pilferage and it was detected on inspection. But the question is, the said proceeding before the Forum is not maintainable at all. He has contended that in the instant case, the opposite party committed theft of electrical energy by pilferage and it was detected on inspection. Thus, the opposite party had caused the loss of revenue to the petitioner. For that reason, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the O.C., Panskura on February 12, 2010. Not only that provisionary assessment was made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the opposite party was informed that he was to pay a sum of Rs.71,011/-. If he has any objection against the said assessment by the Assessing Officer, he may file objection under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. But, in any way, no complaint lies before the Consumer Forum or Court in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He has relied on the decision of the unreported cases of F.A.T. No.3038 of 2006 and F.M.A.T. No.592 of 2009 with F.M.A.T. No.927 of 2009 and thus, he submits that in view of the provisions of Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003, no suit or proceeding is maintainable before any Civil Court or Forum. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Saha appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the State Commission is within its right in passing the impugned order and if the petitioner has any grievance, remedy lies elsewhere and this revisional application before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Saha has referred to the decision of The Manager, Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. & anr. v. Smt. Gouri Mandal reported in 2009(1) CLJ(Cal) 929, the decision of Nilmoni Mukherjee & ors. v. Asim Kumar Chattopadhyay & anr. AND Nilmoni Mukherjee & ors. v. Dr. Sudhanshu Sekhar Patra & anr. reported in 2008(1) CLJ(Cal) 892 and the decision of The Manager, Burdwan Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Anath Bandhu Dhara reported in 2009(2) CLJ(Cal) 685 and thus, he submits that this Hon’ble Court has held that the revisional application before the High Court is not maintainable at all. v. Dr. Sudhanshu Sekhar Patra & anr. reported in 2008(1) CLJ(Cal) 892 and the decision of The Manager, Burdwan Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Anath Bandhu Dhara reported in 2009(2) CLJ(Cal) 685 and thus, he submits that this Hon’ble Court has held that the revisional application before the High Court is not maintainable at all. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record I find that the language of Section 145 of the Electricity Act is very much clear that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126, is empowered under the Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other Authority in respect of the action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by the Act. It may be pointed out herein that the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 are complete to take appropriate measures in respect of pilferage of energy. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had taken the necessary steps for pilferage and he had assessed the loss of revenue accordingly under Section 126 of the Act. Section 127 provides for an appeal, if any grievance is raised against such assessment. Finally, Section 145 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court from granting any order of injunction. It may be noted herein that the Forum has directed mandatory order as well as prohibitory order not to disconnect electricity after reconnection. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Commission. Now, Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly lays down the provision for taking appropriate steps against the order of the State Commission. The Consumer Protection Act also lays down the procedure to be adopted in case of any grievance from any Forum and Section 21 is clear that the petitioner is at liberty to move the National Commission against any order of the State Commission. The decisions referred to by Mr. Saha clearly indicates that since having an alternative remedy by filing appropriate measures before the National Commission, the petitioner is debarred from taking recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mr. The decisions referred to by Mr. Saha clearly indicates that since having an alternative remedy by filing appropriate measures before the National Commission, the petitioner is debarred from taking recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mr. Nayak has referred to the unreported decision which relates to appeals against the order passed by the Civil Court and those appeals were allowed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. As the alternative Forum is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the National Commission, I am of the view that the present application should not be entertained. The impugned order does not relate to any jurisdictional error committed by the State Commission. Therefore, I am of the view that I have no other alternative but to dismiss the revisional application. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. It is recorded that I have not gone into the merits of the application at all. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.