JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order/judgment dated 31.12.2007 passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in case no. EOJ/08/2007, whereby and where under learned Ombudsman set aside the majority judgment of Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB ( herein after referred as the Forum) in Case No.18 of 2006 and declare that disconnection of electrical connection from the premises of the respondent is illegal, therefore, the respondent is entitled for compensation. 2. It appears that the Damodar Valley Corporation(herein after referred as the DVC) had filed a writ application in this court vide W.P.(C) No.1514 of 2004, for issuance of a direction, restraining the petitioner (JSEB) from supplying electricity to M/s Sai Electro Casting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Akshay Technology Pvt. Ltd (sole respondent of this case) in view of the provision of Section 18 of the D.V.C Act, 1948. It was contended in the above writ application that the JSEB has no power to supply electricity in the command area of D.V.C. at the pressure of 30,000 volt, without the consent of DVC. It appears that the aforesaid writ application was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 01.10.2012 and the petitioner (J.S.E.B.) was directed to disconnect the electricity from the premises of the aforesaid two consumers. It further appears that M/s Sai Electro Casting Pvt. Ltd as well as the sole respondent challenged the aforesaid order of learned Single Judge by filing two separate Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. No. 76 of 2003 and L.P.A. No. 97 of 2003 respectively. It further appears that both the letters patent appeals dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2003. 3. Thereafter, M/s Sai Electrocasting Pvt. Ltd. filed special leave to appeal in which leave has already been granted on 02.08.2004 and Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2004 registered. However, it is stated that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. It appears that during pendency of aforesaid appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner (J.S.E.B.) disconnected electrical connection from the premises of sole respondent on 19.12.2005. as directed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. 5. However, it is stated that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. It appears that during pendency of aforesaid appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner (J.S.E.B.) disconnected electrical connection from the premises of sole respondent on 19.12.2005. as directed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. 5. Against the aforesaid disconnection, the sole respondent filed an application before the Forum, alleging there in that before disconnecting the electrical connection, no notice given to it, as required under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the action of the petitioner is illegal. The sole respondent further prayed for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.21 crores along with 10% interest from the date of disconnection. It appears that Forum by majority judgment dismissed the application of sole respondent and held that electrical connection of the respondent disconnected as per the direction of the High Court, therefore, no notice require to be given, because orders of the High Court passed in presence of the sole respondent. The Forum further held that Section 56 of the Electricity Act will not apply in the facts of the present case. The Forum then held that the Forum has no jurisdiction to award compensation. 6. Thereafter, the sole respondent filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman vide case No. EOJ/08/2007. The Electricity Ombudsman allowed the appeal vide its order dated 31.12.2007 and held that the action of the JSEB in disconnecting the electricity from the premises of sole respondent is illegal. The learned Ombudsman further declared that appellant (sole respondent) is entitled for restoration of electrical connection along with compensation. Learned Ombudsman further directed that loss caused to the respondent will be determined by a Committee of expert, nominated by the petitioner as well as sole respondent. The Ombudsmab further held that sole respondent is also entitled to get Rs.25,000/-with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of application before the Forum. Against the aforesaid order of the Ombudsman, present writ application filed by the petitioner (J.S.E.B.). 7. Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that findings of the learned Ombudsman is wholly erroneous and against the record. Against the aforesaid order of the Ombudsman, present writ application filed by the petitioner (J.S.E.B.). 7. Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that findings of the learned Ombudsman is wholly erroneous and against the record. He submits that the learned Ombudsman held that since no notice, under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, given to the sole respondent, before disconnection of electrical connection, therefore, disconnection is illegal. He submits that in the instant case, Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has no application. He further submits that Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 relates to disconnection of supply of electricity in cases of default of payment of electric charges. He further submits that in the instant case, electrical connection of the sole respondent disconnected as per the order of this court dated 01.10.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1514 of 2002, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of learned Ombudsman cannot be sustained. He further submits that a consumer can claim compensation under section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Such compensation can be determined and awarded by the Commission. Thus, learned Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to award compensation. Accordingly, he submits that the order of the learned Ombudsman is wholly without jurisdiction. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that during the pendency of the letters patent appeal, the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into force with effect from 10.06.2003. It is submitted that after coming into force of Electricity Act, 2003, the sole respondent executed another agreement with the petitioner (J.S.E.B.) on 15.07,2003 as per direction of the Member (G & D). Therefore, it will be presumed that a fresh connection given to the respondent as per provisions of New Electricity Act. In that view of the matter, J.S.E.B. can not disconnect the electrical connection of respondent in the garb of the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ application. It is submitted that the respondent was paying electrical charges regularly, thus, before disconnecting the electrical connection of the respondent, a notice under section 56 of the Electricity Act is require to be given. It is submitted that the respondent was paying electrical charges regularly, thus, before disconnecting the electrical connection of the respondent, a notice under section 56 of the Electricity Act is require to be given. Learned counsel further submitted that due to illegal disconnection of electrical connection of the respondent, the factory of the respondent had stopped and all the equipments damaged, therefore, respondent is entitled to get compensation. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that impugned judgment of learned Ombudsman is legal, therefore, this writ application is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 9. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 10. From perusal of impugned judgment of learned Ombudsman, I find that while allowing the appeal, he had given following findings : "From the material on the record it appears that JSEB is more interesting to violating the law then obeying the same it had any intention to obey the judgment/order of Hon'ble High Court JSEB ought to have disconnected the electricity connection of the appellant on the date of judgment passed in the writ petition no. 1514/2000 or on the date of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in L.P.A. but it had waited for more than two years. There is no justification for the JSEB to disconnect the supply of electricity of the appellant that also without notice in view of the fact that after coming into force the Electricity Act, 2003, it has itself entered into a fresh agreement on 15.07.2003 and from the material available on the record I find that disconnection of the appellant's electricity connection by the JSEB on 19.12.2005 is totally illegal and the appellant is entitled for restoration of electric connection along with the compensation. The compensation shall be actual damage and loss to be assessed by a committee of experts to be nominated one of each by the appellant and the respondent JSEB plus Rs, 25000/-with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the application by the appellant before the VUSNF and till the compensation is paid to the appellant. The appellant and JSEB will nominate one each experts for arriving actual loss and damage due to illegal disconnection of the electricity on 19.12.2005 and such amount shall be compensation due to actual loss and damage in which a sum of Rs. The appellant and JSEB will nominate one each experts for arriving actual loss and damage due to illegal disconnection of the electricity on 19.12.2005 and such amount shall be compensation due to actual loss and damage in which a sum of Rs. 25000/-as penal damage shall be added and the added amount shall be payable to the appellant with interest at the rate of 10%. In the result this appeal is allowed and the majority judgment of VUSNF is set aside. Both the parties are directed to nominate one expert with intimation to this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the order the JSEB is directed to restore connection forthwith." 11. From perusal of aforesaid findings, it appears that the learned Ombudsman had given much weightage to the agreement dated 15.07.2003 and held that after the fresh agreement, the electrical connection of the sole respondent will be governed by Electricity Act, 2003. It appears that said agreement was brought before the Ombudsman. The agreement also annexed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. From perusal of paragraph no. 11 of agreement, I find that the same was not executed as per the provisions of New Indian Electricity Act, rather the same was also executed under the old Electricity Act. Paragraph no.11 of the agreement reproduced herein below for ready reference : "This agreement shall be read and construed as subject in all respects to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 rules framed thereunder and the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 together with rules, regulation (if any) tariffs and terms and conditions for supply of electricity framed and issued thereunder and for the time being in force as far as the same may respectively be applicable and all such provisions shall prevail in case of any conflict or inconsistency between them and the terms and conditions of this agreement." 12. From the aforesaid stipulation in the agreement, it is clear that the agreement was entered between the parties according to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the rules, regulations, tariffs and other terms and conditions for supply of electricity framed thereunder. In that view of the matter, findings of the learned Ombudsman that after enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003 a new agreement entered in between the parties as per the provision of new law is not correct. In that view of the matter, findings of the learned Ombudsman that after enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003 a new agreement entered in between the parties as per the provision of new law is not correct. Thus, aforesaid finding of learned Ombudsman is against the facts of this case. 13. Learned Ombudsman further held that the sole respondent was not given any notice before disconnection of electrical connection, as require under section 56 of the Electricity Act. In my view section 56 of the Act deals with disconnection of electric supply, if the consumer neglects to pay any charge for electricity. In the instant case, electrical connection of the respondent disconnected as per the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ application. It is worth mentioning that the respondent has not filed any appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment of this court. Thus, the judgment has become final, so far it relates to sole respondent. Under the aforesaid circumstance, J.S.E.B. was duty bound to comply the direction of this court. Though, I find that aforesaid order was complied a bit late, but only because of that it cannot be held that action of the JSEB is illegal. Since the aforesaid writ application and letter patent appeals disposed of in presence of respondent, therefore, no notice is require to be give to it. Accordingly, I am of the view that aforesaid finding of the learned Ombudsman is also not correct, therefore, liable to be set aside. 14. Now coming to the finding of learned Ombudsman on the point of compensation, it is worth mentioning that under the Electricity Act, a consumer can claim compensation under section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 57 of the Act reads as under : "57 Standards of performance of licensee-(1) The Appropriate Commission may, after consultation with the licensees and persons likely to be affected, specify standards of performance of a licensee or a class of licensees. (2) If a licensee fails to meet the standards specified under sub-section (1), without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution be initiated, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the person affected as may be determined by the Appropriate Commission: Provided that before determination of compensation, the concerned licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) The compensation determined under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the concerned licensee within ninety days of such determination." 15. From plain reading of the above provisions, it is clear that commission can determine and order for payment of compensation to the consumer. Thus, I find that learned Ombudsman had exceeded its jurisdiction while declaring that respondent entitled to get compensation. Thus, I am of the view that aforesaid finding of the learned Ombudsman is wholly without jurisdiction. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I allow this writ application and quash the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-10). However, parties shall bear their own cost.