JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-Board i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board has challenged order dated 19.10.2009, Annexure P-1, vide which respondent No.2-forum, allowed the consumer complaint filed before it by present respondent No. 1, as well as order dated 8.12.2009, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No. 2-Forum dismissing the review petition field before it by the petitioner-Board as not maintainable. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.1 filed complaint No. 1424209009 before respondent No. 2-forum, mentioning therein that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant unit”) was sanctioned a connected load of 462 KW with 450 KVA as contract demand at 11 KV supply voltage by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, vide letter dated 9.8.1983. As per the complainant unit, with a view to upgrade its existing unit from alloy steel casting to alloy steel casting and rolling mill, it made an additional investment of Rs. 179 lacs by increasing the installed capacity of the unit from 2000 Metric tonnes to 3400 Metric tonnes. With the expansion of the unit, the existing connected load was also required to be upgraded/increased to 1575 KW and accordingly it applied to the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) for the issuance of Power Availability Certificate. The requisite charges including non-refundable security and infrastructure development charges were deposited by it with the Board and thereafter, on 28.11.2005, the Board issued Power Availability Certificate to the Unit. As per the complainant unit, it was agreed by the Board to supply contracted power at 11 KV from Barotiwala Sub Station, as per Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations. Extension charges demanded by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Board were also deposited by the complainant-Unit on 16.5.2008 and Power Availability Certificate was extended by the Board on 11.6.2008. It was further the case of the complainant-Unit that the Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle) HPSEB, Solan forwarded its load extension case to the Chief Engineer (OP) vide letter dated 1.9.2008. The case was recommended by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) to Chief Engineer (Operation), vide letter dated 4.12.2008 and finally letter dated 6.1.2009 sanctioning the case of the complainant-unit was issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial). The case was recommended by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) to Chief Engineer (Operation), vide letter dated 4.12.2008 and finally letter dated 6.1.2009 sanctioning the case of the complainant-unit was issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial). Thereafter, the terms of original Power Availability Certificate dated 28.12.2005 were changed and the supply voltage was now to be at 66 KV instead of 11 KV, as originally agreed to and provided in communication dated 28.11.2005. As per the complainant unit, the load which was sanctioned vide communication dated 6.1.2009, was purportedly as per the instruction No. 10 of H.P. State Electricity Board (HPSEB) Sales Manual, which provided that Chief Engineer was the competent authority to sanction load from 501 to 2000 KW at 11-22 KV voltage. As per the complainant-unit, said instruction stood revised by HP Electricity Regulatory Commission with the latest tariff order being the Multi Year Tariff Order 2009-2011, which provided for supply to large industrial units using load between 100 KW to 2000 KW to be supplied at 11 KV, 15 KV or 22 KV supply voltage. On these basis, it was contended by the complainant-unit that the terms and conditions incorporated vide letter dated 6.1.2009 by the Board were contrary to the terms of tariff order, as framed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, besides being arbitrary and illegal. On these basis, complaint was filed by the complainant-Unit before respondent No. 2-Forum alleging therein that the petitioner-Board was thrusting 66 KV supply voltage upon the complainant, which was not at all the requirement of the complainant-Unit and that the said act of the respondent was totally illegal, coercive and arbitrary. It was the further case of the complainant-Unit that the same would not only entail the changing of entire equipment and installation by the complainant-Unit, but also would lead to higher payments in terms of monthly bills, Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) and other charges. 3. The complaint, so filed by the complainant-Unit was resisted by the Board on the grounds that the Board had acted as per the provisions of tariff order and the instructions relied by complainant-Unit were guidelines and were not fully applicable upon the petitioner-Board. 3. The complaint, so filed by the complainant-Unit was resisted by the Board on the grounds that the Board had acted as per the provisions of tariff order and the instructions relied by complainant-Unit were guidelines and were not fully applicable upon the petitioner-Board. It was further the case of the Board that its Member (Operation) was competent authority of the Board, which was legally entitled to issue any direction in favour of the Board and directions issued by the said competent authority were in fact binding upon its officers. On these basis, the Board justified its act. It was denied that they were thrusting 66 KV supply voltage upon the complainant-Unit and as per the Board, the complainant-Unit in fact had agreed for the same. On these basis, the petitioner-Board denied the allegations made in the complaint. 4. Respondent No. 2-forum, vide its order dated 19.10.2009 allowed the complaint, so filed by the complainant-Unit. While allowing the complaint, it was held by the learned forum that at the time of issuance of impugned order dated 6.1.2009, the tariff order issued by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission on 30.5.2008 was applicable, wherein the standard Supply Voltage for Large Industrial Power Supply (LIP) for connected load between 101 KW to 2000 KW was specified as 11 KV or 15 KV or 22 KV. Learned Forum further held that Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009 notified by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission on 26th May, 2009 contained following provisions under clause 2.1.6 (Standard Supply Voltage):- 2.1.6.1 Depending upon the connected load (KW) of a consumer, the supply to the consumer shall be given at the following standard voltage (volts/kv) and phase as may exist on the relevant distribution system: Sr. No. Connected Load Standard Supply Voltage (AC) 1. <=50 KW Single Phase 230 Volts or three phase 400 Volts or 2.2. KV 2. 51 KW upto 2000 KW Three phase 6.6 KV, 11 KV, 15 KV or 22 KV 3. 2001 KW up to 10000 KW Three phase 33 kv or 66 kv 4 >10000 KW >=132 KV (three phase) 5. It was further held by the learned Forum that Large Industrial Power Supply schedule of tariff was applicable to the complainant-Unit as its total connected load is 1575 KW and therefore, the load was required to be sanctioned at 11 KV supply voltage. It was further held by the learned Forum that Large Industrial Power Supply schedule of tariff was applicable to the complainant-Unit as its total connected load is 1575 KW and therefore, the load was required to be sanctioned at 11 KV supply voltage. On these basis, learned Forum set aside the order, which was assailed by the complainant-unit. Learned Forum further directed that the amended load sanction be issued within one month in consonance with tariff order, issued by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission on 30.5.2008 and Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009, notified by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission on 26.5.2009. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2-Forum, a review petition was filed by the petitioner-Board. The review petition was dismissed by the Forum, vide order dated 8.12.2009, Annexure P-3, by holding that the review petition, in fact, was not maintainable. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Board has filed the present writ petition challenging both orders i.e. dated 19.10.2009 and 8.12.2009, vide which respondent No. 2-forum had allowed the complaint and had dismissed the review petition by the petitioner-Board. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. It is settled law that the right to file an appeal or review is not a common law right, but is a statutory right. In the absence of there being any legal provision, whereby the power of review stood conferred upon respondent No. 2-Forum for the purpose of reviewing its own order, passed on a consumer complaint filed before it, the review petition filed by the petitioner-board was rightly dismissed vide Annexure P-3, dated 8.12.2009 by respondent No. 2-Forum on the ground that review was not maintainable. In fact this preposition was not very seriously disputed by the petitioner-Board. 10. In fact this preposition was not very seriously disputed by the petitioner-Board. 10. As far as impugned order dated 19.10.2009 is concerned, perusal of the same demonstrates that while allowing the consumer complaint filed by respondent No. 1, it was held by learned Forum below that the act of the Board of issuing load to the complainant-unit at 66 KV supply voltage was contrary to the tariff order issued in this regard by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, dated 30.5.2008, which was applicable at the time when order dated 6.1.2009 was passed by the Board, wherein standard supply voltage for Large Industrial Power Supply for connected load between 101 KW to 2000 KW was specified as 11 KV or 15 KV or 22 KV. Learned Forum further held that large supply tariff was applicable to the complainant-Unit, as its total connected load was 1575 KW, therefore, load was required to be sanctioned at 11 KV supply voltage. 11. The schedule pertaining to Large Industrial Power Supply, as is available at page 75 of the paper book, demonstrates that available connected load of 101 KW to 2000 KW Standard Supply Voltage (AC50 Hz) has to be 11 KV or 15 KV or 22 KV. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner-Board that the connected load of the respondent No. 1 is between 101 KW to 2000 KW. Communication dated 4.12.2008, Annexure P-11 addressed by the Chief Engineer (Commercial), HPSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla to the Chief Engineer (Operation) South, HPSEB-171004 on the subject “Load extension case of M/s Hem Kunt Iron and Steel (P) Barotiwala Disrict Lolan” also demonstrates that the recommendations of Chief Engineer (Operation) in favour of respondent No. 1 was for release of additional load of 1119 KW with 550 KVA Contract Demand of 11 KV. Similarly, Annexure P-6, is communication dated 16.5.2008 addressed by Chief Engineer (Commercial) to respondent No.1 on the subject, “Power Availability Certificate-Extension of Validity thereof”. Vide this communication, respondent No.1 was called upon to deposit the amount mentioned therein for extension of validity charges of Power Availability Certificate for additional 1119 KW load at 11 KV supply voltage for expansion of existing unit. Vide this communication, respondent No.1 was called upon to deposit the amount mentioned therein for extension of validity charges of Power Availability Certificate for additional 1119 KW load at 11 KV supply voltage for expansion of existing unit. Annexure P-10, which again is a communication dated 1.9.2008, addressed by Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), HPSEB, Solan to Chief Engineer (Operation) South, HPSEB, Shimla on the subject, “Load Sanction case/Extension case”, also demonstrates that the load was to be supplied at 11 KV. 12. Therefore, it is evident and apparent from all these communications that when the case of respondent No. 1 was processed by petitioner-Board for grant of additional load, the same was processed on the premise that additional power supply be sanctioned at 11 KV supply voltage. Respondent No.2-Forum, which otherwise is a forum consisting of expert members, while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant-Unit, (as has also been taken note by me above) held that Large Industrial Power Supply schedule of tariff was applicable to the unit, as its total connected load was 1575 KW and the same was required to be sanctioned at 11KV supply voltage, especially in view of the fact that at the time of issuance of impugned order dated 6.1.2009, tariff order dated 30.5.2008, issued by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission was applicable, wherein the Standard Voltage in Large Industrial Supply for connected load between 101 KW to 2000 KW stood specified as 11 KV or 15 KV or 22 KV. 13 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court as to what was the perversity or illegality with the findings so returned by learned Forum below. Nothing to the contrary was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, from which it could be inferred that the findings, so returned by respondent No. 2-Forum, while allowing the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, were perverse findings or that the tariff order dated 30.5.2008, issued by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, on the basis of which, the complaint was allowed by respondent No. 2-Forum. 14. Thus, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is therefore, dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. No order as to costs. 14. Thus, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is therefore, dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. No order as to costs. In view of above discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality with the order dated 19.10.2009, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No. 2-Forum vide which, the complaint filed by respondent-1, Unit was allowed. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. No orders as to costs.