JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The 2nd respondent is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. G. Rahul. 2. The petitioners question the jurisdictional authority of the Electricity Ombudsman to consider the grievances of the electricity consumer, in respect of the assessment bills raised by the Power Company, under Part-XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Act”). 3. The respondent No.2 was a domestic category consumer having 6 KW connected load for his premises at Karimganj. In September, 2007 he applied for commercial connection with 51 KW load, for a multi-storied commercial complex, in place of his 6 KW category connection. When the approval for commercial category connection was given on 7.7.2008 by the Sr. Electrical Inspector of the Assam Government, the consumer deposited the load security amount of Rs.54,805/- and also the cost of the meter, on 30.7.2008 and 31.7.2008 respectively. The Test Report and other related documents were then furnished by the 2nd respondent on 11.8.2008 and thereafter the official of the Power Company made a physical inspection and load verification of the commercial building on 26.8.2008. 4. During their visit, the Inspection Team found that the 2nd respondent is unauthorisedly using 31 KW loan for commercial purpose, from the existing 6 KW domestic category connection. Since such unauthorized use amounts to malpractice under Sub-Clause (b) and (e) of Clause 5.A.3.2 of the Assam Electricity Regulation Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2004 Regulations”), two assessment bills both dated 30.8.2008 were raised against the errant consumer. The first assessment bill for Rs.82,165/-was on account of unauthorized extension of load and the second assessment bill for Rs.42,731/-, was for utilizing the domestic category connection, for commercial purpose. The 2nd respondent paid the assessment bills under protest but he lodged complaint on 8.6.2010 before the consumer Grievances & Redressal Forum of the power Company, to challenge the assessment bills. 5. The Grievances Redrassal Forum is constituted under the Guidelines for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines notified by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Forum is authorised to address general grievances of the electricity consumers. 5. The Grievances Redrassal Forum is constituted under the Guidelines for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines notified by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Forum is authorised to address general grievances of the electricity consumers. The complaint against the assessment bill was rejected by the Redressal Forum on 23.8.2010 (Annexure-3) with the observation that the respondent No.2 unauthorisedly consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load and use was for commercial purpose, although connection was for domestic category only. The Clause (4) of the Guidelines authorises the Grievances Redressal Forum to decide complaints of the consumer and if any complainant is aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, they may appeal to the Electricity Ombudsman, under Clause (5) of the Guidelines. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the Grievances Redressal Forum, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman who entertained the appeal and passed the impugned order on 24.12.2010 (Annexure-9) whereby, the penalization of the consumer by the two assessment bills were held to be unjustified and accordingly consequential direction was issued, for refund of the amounts deposited by the 2nd consumer, in pursuant to the impugned assessment bills. 7. The primary focus of the challenge to the decision of the Electricity Ombudsman is the want of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to entertain issues pertaining to assessment bills, covered by Part-XII of the Electricity Act. The ambit of the powers of the Ombudsman is indicated under Clause (6) of the Guidelines but significantly few subject matters including those covered under Part-XII of the Electricity Act, are kept out of the purview of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, under Sub-Clause (2) of the Clause (6) of the Guidelines. As these clauses are relevant, they are extracted here for ready reference :- “(6) Powers of Ombudsman : (1) The Ombudsman may receive and consider all representations filed by the complainant for non-redressal of the grievance by the Forum under Sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act. (2) Notwithstanding the above, the Ombudsman shall not entertain any representation in regard to matter, which are subject matters of existing or proposed proceedings before the Commission or before any other authority including under Part X, XI, XII, XIV and XV of the Act. ………” 8. The concerned assessment bills were raised against the consumer when unauthorized consumption was detected during the inspection of the premises on 26.8.2008. ………” 8. The concerned assessment bills were raised against the consumer when unauthorized consumption was detected during the inspection of the premises on 26.8.2008. Then assessment bills were raised under section 126 of the Electricity Act. The person on whom assessment bills are served, is entitled to file objection and reasonable opportunity of hearing should be given, before the final order of assessment is passed. Redressal mechanism is available in the same chapter to an aggrieved party, who may then approach the Appellate Authority, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. What is significant here is that all these actions relating to investigation and enforcement, are contained in Part-XII of the Electricity Act and the redressal mechanism in respect of any grievances under Part-XII, is provided in that very chapter of the Electricity Act. Therefore, when assessment bills were served upon the consumer for unauthorized use of electricity, the statutory legal remedy available, is to approach the appellate authority, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. 9. However in the instant case, the consumer approached the Grievances Redressal Forum at the first instance and then approached the Electricity Ombudsman, to challenge the decision of the Redressal Forum. But since this was a case of investigation and enforcement under Part-XII of the Electricity Act, the jurisdiction of the Electricity Ombudsman is ousted under Clause (6)(2) of the Guidelines. 10. On similar facts regarding unauthorized utilisation of electricity detected during inspection of the premises of the consumer, the Supreme Court held in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Vishwa Calibre Builders Private Ltd. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 539 that excess load used unauthorisedly by the consumer are issues, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Electricity Ombudsman and accordingly the direction issued by the Ombudsman in favour of the consumer in that case, was declared to be a jurisdictional error. 11. The above ratio laid down in Vishwa Calibre Builders Private Ltd. (supra) was quoted with approval in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 where the Supreme Court opined that the Ombudsman do not have jurisdiction to issue direction for regularisation of unauthorized use of electricity. 12. 12. The application of the respondent No.2 for extra load and in commercial category, was still under process and at that stage, the domestic category consumer was not authorised to use his domestic category connection to consume extra electricity for commercial use. The rate for domestic and commercial usage for electricity is different and that is how, when unauthorized use was detected during inspection, assessment bills were raised against the errant consumers. If respondent was aggrieved, he could have availed the remedy provided under the Electricity Act. But here he approached the wrong authority, who had no role in such matters. 13. When we take into account the well-defined area of jurisdiction of the Electricity Ombudsman specified in Clause (6) of the Guidelines and more particularly, consider the limitation on the power of the Ombudsman specified in Sub-Clause (2) of Clause (6), it is apparent that the Electricity Ombudsman do not have jurisdiction to entertain issues arising out of investigation of unauthorized use of electricity and the assessment contemplated under Part-XII of the Electricity Act. Therefore this Court has no hesitation in declaring that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Electricity Ombudsman in the present case, was a jurisdictional error. Thus the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman on 24.12.2010 (Annexure-9) is found to be unsustainable in law and the same is quashed. 14. However at this stage, Mr. G. Rahul, the learned Counsel prays for the opportunity to approach the appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. While grievances in respect of the assessment under Section 126 can be entertained under Section 127, the approach must be made to the statutory authority within 30 days of the assessment order. But nevertheless, to ensure that the 2nd respondent is not rendered remediless in respect of the assessment, if advised, he may approach the appellate authority within 4 weeks from today. If the appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act is filed within the prescribed period, the same should be considered on merit and the appellate authority should not reject it on the ground of delayed approach. It is ordered accordingly. 15. With the above order, this case stands allowed in the manner indicated, by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.