JUDGMENT : The petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board is aggrieved with the order at Ext.P6 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). The demand raised by the Board for an amount of Rs. 23,15,304/-; being the deficiency in the electricity bills for the period July 2010 to December 2011, was challenged before the Forum. The Forum set aside the bill in its entirety, which is challenged before this Court. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Board submits that action has been taken under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 24 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 (for brevity 'the Code'). The Board, which was the licensee had established undercharging for the period, on inspection conducted at the premises of the consumer. It is submitted that on reading the meter in December 2011, the Meter Reader detected an unusual short fall of consumption and reported the matter to the Board. The petitioner's premises being under the High Tension category, was attached with a HT TOD (Time Of the Day) meter and the TMR Division; being a specialised wing of the Board; an Executive Engineer of the said Division visited the premises and rectified the defect. However on such visit on 06.12.2011, it was noticed that out of the three phases in the TOD meter, termed as R, Y and B; the R side fuse had not been recording the consumption. 3. In such circumstance, there was an undercharging alleged on the consumer and there was an estimation made of the current charges, which are to be paid for the period, in which the recording was deficient. According to the Board, there was an unusual short fall detected from July 2010 to December 2011, which was rectified after the date of inspection, when the defect in meter was rectified. This provides sufficient cause for the Board to demand the short fall in charges is the argument. After the date of inspection, when the defect was rectified; recording was done through R side of the TOD meter and the consumption went up, is the contention. 4. This provides sufficient cause for the Board to demand the short fall in charges is the argument. After the date of inspection, when the defect was rectified; recording was done through R side of the TOD meter and the consumption went up, is the contention. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent however would contend that there was absolutely no notice given to the consumer and sub-regulation(5) of Regulation 24 of the Code cannot be invoked, for reason of Regulation 24 of the Code being possible of invocation only on a complaint made by the consumer and not otherwise. If at all on inspection any unauthorised use or undercharging was detected, then necessarily, the Board had to avail of the procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 'the Act') which procedure had to be scrupulously complied with. It is also submitted that the Forum, in Ext.P6 order had specifically noticed that the monthly meter readings were taken and in December 2011 the voltage in one phase of the electric connection was found missing. There is no explanation as of to why in the meter reading of the earlier 18 months, the defect was not noticed. It is also submitted that the Forum specifically noticed that the short fall alleged was only on a presumption of low consumption and an examination of the consumption for the months previous to the disputed periods, that too was found to be low, which finding has also been recorded by the Forum in Ext.P6. Factually the demand having been found to be invalid there is no further scope for adjudication, is the contention. 5. Admittedly, there was no notice issued nor was any proceeding taken against the consumer. As found by the Forum, the consumer was first informed about the undercharging and the short fall only on the service effected of the bill. The inspection conducted on 06.12.2011 is said to be in the presence of the consumer, but however, there is nothing on record to show that the consumer was informed of such an inspection or that the meter readings were taken in the presence of the consumer. The reliance placed by the Board is on sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 24 of the Code to sustain the action. The reliance placed by the Board is on sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 24 of the Code to sustain the action. A reading of sub-regulation (1), (2) and (4) of the Regulation of 24 of the Code would indicate that the proceedings therein is contemplated only on a complaint of the consumer. However as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board, sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 24 of the Code has an independent existence, as it speaks of the licensee establishing undercharging of the consumption either by reviewing or otherwise. Though a review could possibly be on the basis of an application by the consumer; even otherwise, there could be an allegation of undercharging of power, raised by the licensee and proceedings taken. But even then, when such proceedings are taken, necessarily, there should be notice to the party and in such circumstance, the procedure as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act also has to be followed. 6. The consumer would have to be informed of the specific defect in the meter and the recording also would have to be taken in the presence of the consumer. The subsequent enhancement of the recorded consumption after the curing of the defect also would have to be relied on by the Board to make a short fall assessment for the previous periods. Nothing of that sort has been done in the above case and merely on the basis of an inspection said to have been conducted on 06.12.2011, the consumer was assessed with a short fall for the previous 18 months. 7. The Forum has examined the consumption for the months previous to the disputed period and found that the consumption pattern submitted by the Board for that period does not substantiate the contention of an unprecedented short fall from July 2010 to December 2011. In such circumstance, this Court sitting in judicial review does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent. The writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.