COMMON ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J : Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are directed against the order of Ombudsman, a copy of which is produced in the proceedings. 2. During the course of order, parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Competent Authority. 3. The matter arises in the following manner: 4. The complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. An installation bearing RR No. S8HT30 was serviced under HT-2(b) tariff in the name of the complainant on 28.9.2000 with sanctioned load of 200 KVA for software purpose in a building situated at Electronic City, Bangalore, where the complainant has set up a technology park spread over an approximate area of 22x46,000 sq.ft. Additional loads were serviced subsequently, raising the cumulative contract demand to 4000 KVA. The tariff was changed from HT-2(b) to HT-2(a) on 20.7.2001 upon production of certificate from Department of Industries and Commerce. In the said Technology Park there are various blocks and several entities are accommodated and the power consumed by these entities metered by separate meters provided by the complainant. The officers of respondent used to visit the establishment on a regular basis and inspected the installation regularly on first of every month for consumption of the power supply. 5. It is the case of the complainant that the Competent Authority of respondent inspected the building of the complainant on 18.9.2007 and found that there were eight blocks in the building occupied by five entities. Out of these five, three entities were to be billed under HT-2(a) and two entities were to be billed under HT-2(b). The case of the complainant is that all the five entities were separately metered by him for its internal accounting purposes and for collection of electricity charges for consumption of power. A report was submitted and a back billing of Rs. 22,70,320/- was raised on 8.10.2007. Indeed, the said demand was raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and was treated as provisional bill. The complainant filed his objections indicating that they have sought for change of user of the power supply from HT-2(a) to HT2(b) inasmuch as two of the entities who had occupied the building had changed their course of business and were likely to consume power supply under non-concessional rates. The complainant filed his objections indicating that they have sought for change of user of the power supply from HT-2(a) to HT2(b) inasmuch as two of the entities who had occupied the building had changed their course of business and were likely to consume power supply under non-concessional rates. Pausing here for a minute it is to be noticed that the power supply HT-2(a) was supplied to the software companies on a concessional rates where as IIT-2(b) was for commercial purpose where the charges are collected at the regular rates. It is their case that some time in April 2009 they approached the Executive Engineer of BESCOM inquiring about the applicability of tariff on account of change in activity by one of the entities viz., Deutsche Bank in its technology park. It appears the said consideration was done orally and later followed up with a communication/letter dated 24.4.2009. A copy of which is produced at Annexure-B. Indeed, during the pendency of consideration of this application a demand for back billing was raised and was served on the complainant. The Assistant Engineer of the respondent No.1 was sent to inspect the installation on 21.5.2009, who drew a mahazar wrongly reporting misuse, without following the procedure and without witnesses acknowledging the mahazar in respect of the alleged misuse of power. 6. Suffice it to say as observed the back billing was raised on the ground that 54% of the total consumption i.e., 43,14,946 units was used without any authorization. It appears the complainant filed his objections to the said provisional bill under Section 126(1) of the Act. The complainant to avoid disconnection also deposited 50% of the disputed amount. Thereafter, the respondents passed a final assessment indicating that what was sought in the provisional bill was just and proper notwithstanding the fact that the change of user had commenced only on 1.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said final assessment under Section 126(3) of the Act, a right of appeal is provided under Section 127 of the Act. Nevertheless the complainant sought to make a grievance of the entire procedure before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumers grievance redressal forum at Bangalore, which is constituted under Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. Indeed, the complaint of the complainant was dealt extensively by the redressal forum. Nevertheless the complainant sought to make a grievance of the entire procedure before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumers grievance redressal forum at Bangalore, which is constituted under Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. Indeed, the complaint of the complainant was dealt extensively by the redressal forum. But nevertheless was of the view that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the complaint inasmuch as the subject matter would relate to the recovery of arrears by back billing and an appeal is provided under Section 127 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order passed on the said complaint the complainant was before the Ombudsman appointed under the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bangalore. The Ombudsman presumed that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint and after examining the order passed by the redressal forum accepted the complaint and further directed the respondents to consider the claim of the complainant with reference to the application made by them and also the amount, which is deposited. Aggrieved by the said order of Ombudsman both the complainant as well as the respondents are before this Court. 7. The complainant is seeking a direction to the respondent BESCOM to implement the order passed by the Ombudsman. Whereas the respondents are before this Court questioning the order of the Ombudsman on the ground that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction inasmuch as the job entrusted to the Ombudsman was not in respect of certain action, which were taken under the Act for which a remedy is provided by way of an appeal. 8. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that having regard to the provisions of Section 42 (5) to (8) of the Act, it is open for the complainant to have his grievance redressed before the Ombudsman inasmuch as such a power is vested with the Ombudsman to deal with a situation, in which the complainant is placed. He would further submit that as a bonafide honest consumer of power they had indeed made an application initially in April 2009 itself indicating that the change of user is required to be granted with reference to two entities inasmuch as those two entities having changed their working environment they are not entitled for concessional rates but were required to be billed according to HT-2(b). 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that having regard to the regulations, which would cover the Jurisdiction of the consumer forum as well as the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman could not have entertained the complaint at all inasmuch as, as against the final assessment an appeal is provided under Section 127 of the Act. He further submits with reference to the definition of complaint and the Jurisdiction, the subject matter is ousted from the jurisdiction of Ombudsman. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 11. Indeed, before considering whether the order passed by the original authority on the basis of a provisional assessment, could be justified it is necessary to decide as to whether the Ombudsman has Jurisdiction to deal with the matter of this nature. Indeed, the powers of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman are regulated by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004. The definition of complaint as defined under the said regulation would read as under: 'Complaint' means any grievance made by a consumer with regard to supply of electricity by the licensee, provided that grievance falling within the purview of any of the following provisions of the Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Forum: (1) Unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act. (2) Offences and penalties as provided under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act. (3) Accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity as provided under Section 161 of the Act. 12. The definition of Consumer under the regulation would read as under: 'Consumer' means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee.' 13. Indeed, a perusal of the definition of complaint under the regulation would indicate that for redressal of the grievance made by a consumer with regard to supply of electricity by the licensee, provided that the grievance falling within the purview of the Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Forum. Indeed, a perusal of the definition of complaint under the regulation would indicate that for redressal of the grievance made by a consumer with regard to supply of electricity by the licensee, provided that the grievance falling within the purview of the Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Forum. They are classified as unauthorized use of electricity provided under Section 126 of the Act, Offences and penalties as provided under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, Accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity as provided under Section 161 of the Act. Indeed, the complaint and the jurisdiction are regulated by Regulation 2 (g)(1), (2) & (3) of the Regulation. 14. In the case on hand certainly the dispute or the grievance would fall under Regulation 2(g)(1) inasmuch as it was unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act. In these circumstances, I am of he view that indeed the redressal forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter. Hence, was justified in rejecting the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. But however, the redressal forum was certainly not justified in embarking upon an enquiry with reference to the question involved indeed, once the authority comes to a conclusion it lacks inherent jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter, it is desirable to refrain from pronouncing on merits of the case. But however, that is not the case here. Nevertheless, the redressal forum has stumbled upon a correct decision holding that they did not have the jurisdiction. 15. This takes us to the next question as to whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint of this nature. The powers and duties of the Ombudsman are to be found at Regulation 20, which would read as under: (1) To receive the representations against the order of the Forum and consider such representation and facilitate their satisfaction or settlement by agreement through conciliation and mediation between the licensee and Complainant or by passing an award in accordance with these Regulations. (2) To exercise general powers of superintendence and control over his office and shall be responsible for the conduct of business thereat. (2) To exercise general powers of superintendence and control over his office and shall be responsible for the conduct of business thereat. (3) To incur expenditure on behalf of the office, provided however, in order to exercise such power, the Ombudsman will draw up an annual budget for his office in consultation of the Commission and shall exercise the powers of expenditure within the approved budget. 16. We are more concerned with Regulation 20(1), which is with reference to the receiving of the representations against the, order of the Forum and also to consider such representation and further to facilitate their satisfaction or settlement by agreement through conciliation and mediation or other modes. 17. Indeed, the Ombudsman is in the nature of a watchdog who keeps track of the activities of the companies of which he is seized of the matter. Apparently, the powers and duties of Ombudsman with reference to Regulation 20(1) is required to be read with the complaint as defined under Regulation 2 (g) of the Regulations. Hence, in the circumstances, I am of the view that both the Redressal Forum as well as the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to deal with a situation of the present nature. 18. It is no doubt true that Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel presses into service the provisions of Section 24(8) of the Act to buttress his contention that every consumer without prejudice to their right, which may be part of the rights conferred upon him by Section 42(8) are entitled to come before the Ombudsman. 19. Apparently, Sections 42(5), (6) & (7) cannot be read so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act. Indeed, under the same enactment there cannot be two different entities for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved consumer. 20. In the case on hand the statute itself has provided for a remedy to the complainant as against the order passed by the original authority under Section 126(3) of the Act. When a remedy is provided under the Act itself, the question of the complainant approaching the Redressal Forum or for that matter before Ombudsman does not arise. Indeed, the grievance, which is sought to be complained of as contemplated under Section 42 (5) & (6) of the Act cannot be construed so as to confer the jurisdiction of an appellate board on the Ombudsman. Indeed, the grievance, which is sought to be complained of as contemplated under Section 42 (5) & (6) of the Act cannot be construed so as to confer the jurisdiction of an appellate board on the Ombudsman. 21. Rule-7 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 refers to the establishment of Consumer Redressal Forum and also Ombudsman. The powers and the duties of the Ombudsman are to be found in sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, which would read as under: "7. Consumer Redressal Forum and Ombudsman- (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) The Ombudsman shall consider the representations of the consumers consistent with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Regulations made here under or general orders or directions given by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission in this regard before settling their grievances." 22. A perusal of sub-rule (3) to Rule 7 indicates that he is empowered to consider representations of the consumers consistent with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Regulations made there under or general orders or direction given by the appropriate Government or appropriate Commission in this regard before settling their grievances. 23. Complainant in the circumstances cannot be termed as the consumer who has a grievance. May be he has a grievance, but cannot be 'termed as a person who can approach or lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman, in as much as, the final assessment made by the original authority calling upon the complainant to deposit the amount is by exercising the powers of the appellate authority under Section 126 of the Act. Indeed, the powers of the Ombudsman are undoubtedly wide enough, but however not so wide enough so as to usurp the powers of the original authority, which is conferred on them by the statute under Section 127 of the Act. 24. Thus I am of the view that the Ombudsman certainly did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter regarding the final assessment made by the original authority. 25. No doubt, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior Counsel did submit that two of the other complaints on the identical relief was entertained by the Ombudsman and that has been accepted by the respondent, but I am of the view that by such acceptance, premium cannot be put on such follies of the respondent who normally commit such follies. 25. No doubt, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior Counsel did submit that two of the other complaints on the identical relief was entertained by the Ombudsman and that has been accepted by the respondent, but I am of the view that by such acceptance, premium cannot be put on such follies of the respondent who normally commit such follies. Indeed, the jurisdiction is required to be regulated by the statute and the regulations and not by conferring jurisdiction by agreement of parties. Indeed, time and again, the respondents for their laxity and perpetual lazyness have allowed the grass to grow under their feet and abdicate their powers and surrender them to a person who has no jurisdiction. This will not be the last time and this is likely to happen often. 26. This takes us to the alternate relief, which is sought for by the complainant in as much as, whether the final assessment made by the original authority can be sustained. Indeed, Mr. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the original authority cannot be said to be happily worded, inasmuch as, objections filed by the complainant have not been considered with reference to the application made by them for change of user. 27. It is no doubt true that a feeble submission was made by learned Counsel for the authorities with reference to the genuineness of the correspondence nevertheless, those contentions are not borne by records nor are found in the order passed by the original authority under Section 126(3) of the Act. 28. In these circumstances, the original authority is required to re-do the entire exercise all over again. Indeed, it has come to the notice of the Court notwithstanding pointing out several anomalies in the orders of this nature; the original authority perpetuates in passing the same order mechanically without applying their mind. Indeed, the authorities who are at the helm of affairs are required to ram it down the throat of the original authorities about their powers under Sections 126(1) and 126(3) of the Act. It may not be that they can be termed as quasi judicial authorities, but however, they are vested with power of considering the objections filed. Most of the time, consideration of such objections and also the application of mind is not forthcoming. It may not be that they can be termed as quasi judicial authorities, but however, they are vested with power of considering the objections filed. Most of the time, consideration of such objections and also the application of mind is not forthcoming. Be that as it may, it is for the respondent to put their house in order if their action is required to be sustained in the Courts even though the order passed may be justified. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) Writ Petition No.29620 of 2010 stands disposed of in the following terms: [i] The final assessment order passed by the original authority under Section 126[3] of the Act is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the original authority for fresh consideration. [ii] It is open for the complainant to file additional objections to the provisional assessment. On filing of such objections the original authority shall proceed to consider the same and pass order under Section 126(3) of the Act. [iii] Insofar as seeking direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Ombudsman is concerned, it does not survive for consideration, in as much as, in the companion writ petition filed by the respondent, the order passed by the Ombudsman is set aside. (b) Writ Petition No.31314/2010 is allowed and the order passed by the Ombudsman is set aside. Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above.