JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Rajan Roy,JJ. Heard Sri R.D. Rastogi in person assisted by Sri Azhar Ikram, amicus curiae and Sri Amrendra Nath Shukla holding brief for Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation. 2. This writ petition has been filed on 26.08.2016 challenging a judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi allowing Revision No. 4636 of 2010 filed by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the matter pertains to electricity theft, therefore, it was not cognizable by the Consumer Forum, with liberty to the petitioner herein to avail appropriate remedy before the proper forum. 3. The explanation that has been given by the petitioner for approaching this Court belatedly i.e. after almost two and half years is not supported by any substantial explanation but on facts we are proceeding to consider the merits of the claim. 4. Further more, the Court finds from the records that the electricity connection is not in the name of the petitioner rather it is in the name of his son Rajiv Kumar Rastogi as is mentioned in para 53 of the written statement filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Lucknow, a copy of which is on record. 5. From the record it is clear that the claim before the District Consumer Forum was lodged both by the petitioner and his Son Rajiv Kumar Rastogi jointly. The Electricity Department went up in appeal before the State Consumer Forum, but, the Appellate Forum found the appeal to be defective, inter alia, on account of the non-joinder of necessary party namely the son of the petitioner. The matter was taken up further before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the respondents where also it was the petitioner who was impleaded and again the son of the petitioner in whose name the electricity connection stood had not been brought on record. It is in this background that it is the petitioner himself who has come up before this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 6. The petitioner before us is 80 years old who appears in person. 7. The facts in brief are that the son of the petitioner R.K. Rastogi applied for electricity connection and deposited Rs. 6. The petitioner before us is 80 years old who appears in person. 7. The facts in brief are that the son of the petitioner R.K. Rastogi applied for electricity connection and deposited Rs. 4,000/- for the said purpose whereupon the connection was granted and the meter was installed in 1992, however, it is said that the meter installed was defective. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application on 05.04.1992 to the concerned authority for rectification of the meter whereupon an endorsement was made on 07.04.1992 to the concerned official for replacing the same, as, the same was found defective after testing. This endorsement on the application referred herein above is part of the records as Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition and has not been denied by the opposite parties before the Forum nor before this Court. Inspite of the aforesaid the meter was neither replaced nor rectified. However, it is alleged that during inspection in March, 1999 it was found that the occupant of the premises (other than Shri R.K. Rastogi) was found using electricity directly from the electricity line. Accordingly, the same was disconnected. However, from the records it is evident that though there is such an assertion in the counter affidavit, but, there is nothing to show that any action was initiated against the concerned persons for the said theft of electricity. It is also said that at the time of said inspection the meter was showing a reading of 70.30 as on 07.03.1999, however, the petitioner submits that this reading was taken behind the back of the consumer, therefore, the same is not reliable at all. The opposite parties were under an obligation to rectify the meter or replace the same but did not do so and cooked up a story of electricity theft which is without any basis. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties informs that the meter was replaced in the year 2011 and thereafter on 07.12.2012 theft of electricity by the consumer R.K. Rastogi son of R.D. Rastogi was again detected and an F.I.R. was lodged. We are of the view, as far as this incident is concerned, it is not the subject matter of these proceedings. We are of the view, as far as this incident is concerned, it is not the subject matter of these proceedings. Further more, if an F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the subsequent alleged theft, then, it was also incumbent upon the opposite parties to show that in respect of the first incident alleged to have been detected on 07.03.1999 a similar action was taken, but they have failed to do so, therefore, we find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the story of alleged theft set up by them based on the earlier incident dated 07.03.1999 does not appear to be plausible. We also find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged meter reading taken behind the back of the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration. A resident can not live without any electricity although he has to use the connection as per Rules. 9. Considering the facts of the case, as we find that the allegation of theft is not substantiated and does not appear to be genuine and in view of the fact that maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed in the exercise of his revisional power can not be said to be completely barred and as our view is in conformity with the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dated 26.02.2007 passed in the case of Dr. S.S. Prasad Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in 2007 (2) BLJR 1578, we find that the impugned judgment allowing the revision of the respondents can not be sustained. 10. Further more, on a perusal of the judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission, we find that they do not suffer from any error. The appeal of the respondents had been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of mis-joinder of parties and failure to deposit the statutory amount while filing the appeal as also on merits. For the reasons aforesaid, we restore the judgments of the District Consumer Forum and the Appellate Forum and direct the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection in question, within a period of one month by installing a new meter. The consumer shall abide by the Rules while consuming electricity and shall pay the charges regularly. For the reasons aforesaid, we restore the judgments of the District Consumer Forum and the Appellate Forum and direct the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection in question, within a period of one month by installing a new meter. The consumer shall abide by the Rules while consuming electricity and shall pay the charges regularly. This shall, however, not have any adverse bearing on the F.I.R. lodged in the year 2012 as referred herein above as it is not the subject matter of these proceedings. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.