JUDGMENT : The Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board are the petitioners in the writ petition, where the challenge is against Ext.P8 order of the State Electricity Ombudsman, passed in an appeal preferred before the said authority by a consumer of electricity. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the 1st respondent consumer had obtained an electric connection under tariff LT 6B for a sanctioned load of 1000 Watts in the year 2008. Pursuant to an inspection that was conducted in the premises of the consumer on 29.12.2008, a notice was served on the consumer for differential electricity charges, on the contention that the connected load in the premises was found to be 3786 Watts, and therefore, in excess of the sanctioned load of 1000 Watts. The bill that was issued to the consumer for differential electricity charges was a penal bill that was issued in accordance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act. It is not in dispute that, on being served with the penal bill, the consumer remitted the amounts to the Department. It would appear that, notwithstanding the detection of an unauthorized load in the premises, and despite finding that no steps had been taken by the consumer to regularise the unauthorised load, the petitioners herein did not take any steps to insist on a regularisation by the consumer of the unauthorised load in the premises. In fact, for the period subsequent to 2008, the bills raised on the consumer did not specify that there was any unauthorised load in the premises. The mistake in this regard was detected by the Board only in May, 2010, when it realised that the unauthorised load in the premises had continued to exist. Immediately thereafter, short assessment bills were raised on the consumer, and it is not in dispute that the said short assessment bills were also honoured by the consumer. It is relevant to note that, even after the said billing on the consumer, the Board did not take steps to insist on a regularisation of the continued unauthorised load, detected for a second time, in the premises of the consumer. It is relevant to note that, even after the said billing on the consumer, the Board did not take steps to insist on a regularisation of the continued unauthorised load, detected for a second time, in the premises of the consumer. On 9.9.2013, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board inspected the premises of the consumer, and found that the connected load in the premises of the consumer was 3365 Watts as against the sanctioned load of 1000 Watts. The members of the said Squad also realised that the consumer had all along been subjected to a billing for electricity charges under a wrong tariff, namely, LT 6B as against LT 7A, which, according to the Board, is the correct tariff applicable to the consumer. The petitioners therefore issued a provisional bill to the consumer, and after considering her objection to the same, completed the proceedings against the consumer by Ext.P2 order dated 27.1.2014, finding the consumer liable to pay differential electricity charges, both on account of the unauthorised load detected in the premises, as also on account of the differential rate consequent to the difference in tariff applied for billing purposes. Ext.P3 is the final bill issued to the consumer, wherein, a demand is made for Rs.65,523/-. 2. It would appear that the consumer preferred a petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which, by Ext.P4 order, rejected the complaint after finding that it had no jurisdiction to enter into the disputes since the issue was essentially one traceable to Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Against Ext.P4 order, the consumer preferred a petition before the State Electricity Ombudsman, who, by Ext.P5 order, cancelled the penal bill that was issued to the consumer, and directed the respondent Board to revise the bills issued to the consumer from the date of occupancy in the premises within a month from the date of receipt of the order. The Board was given the liberty to fix the tariff of the consumer, after conducting proper inspection, and after ascertaining the activities carried out in the premises. The petitioner Board then conducted an inspection, as directed by the Ombudsman in Ext.P5 order, and thereupon, issued a fresh bill to the consumer [produced as Ext.R1(d) along with the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent]. The petitioner Board then conducted an inspection, as directed by the Ombudsman in Ext.P5 order, and thereupon, issued a fresh bill to the consumer [produced as Ext.R1(d) along with the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent]. The consumer then challenged the said bill before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which once again by Ext.P7 order, found that it did not have jurisdiction to go into the issue. An appeal preferred by the consumer against Ext.P7 order before the State Electricity Ombudsman was allowed by Ext.P8 order, which found that inasmuch as the Board had not put forward any justifiable reason for having permitted the consumer to continue the use of additional load for a lengthy period of five years, and consequently there was a lapse on the part of the Board in taking timely action to regularise the unauthorised load, the consumer could not be made liable for any differential energy charges, and that too, under a different tariff. The Board was therefore directed to realise the current charges under LT 7A tariff only with effect from 9.9.2013, the date of inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, and was further directed to refund any excess amount that had been collected from the consumer to the said consumer or to adjust the same against future bills of the consumer. As already noticed, Ext.P8 order of the Ombudsman is impugned in this writ petition, primarily on the ground of jurisdiction of the said Ombudsman to entertain a dispute which is essentially traceable to Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, under Section 127, the appeal against any order passed under Section 126 lies only to the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, and hence, the Electricity Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of the dispute raised by the consumer. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, while it may be a fact that against an order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the jurisdiction to hear an appeal is only in the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, the facts in the instant case lead me to hold that, notwithstanding the error in jurisdiction that is noticed, this Court need not, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman, since, the decision arrived at by the Ombudsman is one that can be sustained considering the merits of the case. A decision of a Division Bench in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Non-teaching Staff Association - [2008 (1) KLT 34] is authority for the proposition that even if a lower authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not interfere with the said order of the lower authority if the order of the lower authority can be sustained independently based on the reasonings of the said authority, on merits. This is on a principle that what a lower authority with jurisdiction can do, can also be done by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, I find merit in the observations of the Ombudsman in Ext.P8 order that the petitioner Board had permitted the consumer to function with the unauthorised load that was detected in the premises as early as in 29.12.2008, and thereafter, in May, 2010. They decided to take action for raising penal bills based on the unauthorised load only after the Anti Power Theft Squad visited the premises on 9.9.2013, and thereupon the penal bills were raised against the consumer by applying tariff LT 7A, which, according to the Board, was the correct tariff applicable in respect of the premises. They decided to take action for raising penal bills based on the unauthorised load only after the Anti Power Theft Squad visited the premises on 9.9.2013, and thereupon the penal bills were raised against the consumer by applying tariff LT 7A, which, according to the Board, was the correct tariff applicable in respect of the premises. In my view, the inaction on the part of the petitioner Board to take timely action against the consumer, with the object of regularising an irregularity that was noticed, virtually amounted to a dereliction of duty, for the consequences of which dereliction, the consumer cannot be penalised. I therefore find that the order of the Ombudsman, which takes note of this fact, need not be interfered with in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in its challenge against the same, therefore, fails, and is accordingly dismissed.