JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.01.2009 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun in Complaint no. 89 of 2008 ‘Manoj Kumar Madan Vs. Executive Officer’; quash impugned order dated 20.09.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum Dehradun; quash impugned order dated 17.12.2016 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun and quash impugned judgment/order dated 17.01.2017 passed by learned Electricity Ombudsman. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Revised Provisional bill, under category of unauthorized use of electricity, submitted by respondent no. 2, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the prevailing UERC Regulations.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- Petitioner has Electricity Connection (RK6 no.5305/057725) for the commercial use at his premises situated at 562, Awas Vikas Colony, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The petitioner has his work of Distribution of Ice Cream and had storage of Ice Cream and Water Purifier Plant. The petitioner had taken the said connection on 27.09.2007. On 22.05.2008, petitioner’s meter got burnt. On 23.05.2008, the petitioner informed the respondent no. 2 about the burnt meter. According to the petitioner, the employees of respondent no. 1 asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1100/-against the burnt meter and the petitioner deposited Rs. 1100/-on 23.05.2008 itself. The old meter (i.e. Meter no. 577744) was accordingly got replaced by the new meter UC 50137 and, accordingly, a Meter Sealing Certificate was issued by the Department. The sealing report shows that the burnt meter showed the reading of 1119, which corroborates with the old reading of 828 on 10.5.2008. On the same day i.e. 23-05-2008, the S.D.O. of the respondent no. 1, namely, Sri Lalit Chaudhary came to the petitioner’s premises and found that new meter was installed at petitioner’s premises and enquired about the new meter, to which the petitioner told the entire events which led to change of meter. Thereafter, the said S.D.O. checked the load of petitioner and asked the petitioner that to obviate the difficulty of burnt meter again, the petitioner better change his load from 4 KW to 5 KW and get a 3 phase meter installed at his premises. Thereafter, the said S.D.O. checked the load of petitioner and asked the petitioner that to obviate the difficulty of burnt meter again, the petitioner better change his load from 4 KW to 5 KW and get a 3 phase meter installed at his premises. Petitioner, on the same day, deposited the amount of Rs. 2000/-for Load Enhancement (From 4 KW to 5 KW). After receipt of the amount of Rs. 2000/-, the Department changed the meter UC 50137 with a Three Phase meter (no. 04729977) on 02.07.2008. On 04.07.2008, the petitioner received an Assessment Bill dated 27.06.2008 of Rs. 3,81,777/-, by post, regarding alleged theft of electricity. On 17.11.2008, petitioner preferred a complaint (being Complaint no. 89 of 2008 ‘Manoj Kumar Madan Vs. Executive Officer’) challenging the Provisional Bill No. 1112 dated 27.06.2008 for Rs. 3,81,377/-. The Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2009, dismissed the petitioner’s said Complaint. Petitioner, after the dismissal of the complaint by the impugned order dated 24.01.2009, preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun and the said complaint was also dismissed by the District Consumer Forum Dehradun vide order dated 20.09.2016. Thereafter, petitioner again approached the Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun, wherein the petitioner duly informed the said Forum about the previous dismissal and preference of subsequent complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner also stated that no case of unauthorized use of Electricity was maintainable against the petitioner. The Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun, vide impugned order dated 17.12.2016, dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Electricity Ombudsman by preferring complaint dated 22.12.2016 (which was registered as Representation no. 28. of 2016 ‘Shri Manoj Madan Vs. The Executive Engineer’). Learned Electricity Ombudsman, vide impugned judgment & order dated 17.01.2017, dismissed the petitioner’s aforesaid representation. It is alleged that, on 31.01.2017, the respondent no. 2 has disconnected the petitioner’s Electricity connection. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the petitioner himself informed the respondent Department that his meter was burnt and the respondent Department sealed the meter; but, subsequently, a new case of theft is made out against the petitioner. He submits that the recovery made against the petitioner is totally illegal. 4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the petitioner himself informed the respondent Department that his meter was burnt and the respondent Department sealed the meter; but, subsequently, a new case of theft is made out against the petitioner. He submits that the recovery made against the petitioner is totally illegal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner has not availed that remedy. He prayed that the present writ petition shall be dismissed on this ground. He further submitted that in case petitioner deposits 50% of the amount, the electricity connection of the petitioner will be restored. 5. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In case petitioner files the Appeal and deposits 50% of the amount, the electricity connection of the petitioner should be restored forthwith. Needless to say that deposition of 50% of the amount by the petitioner shall be subject to final outcome of the Appeal.