JUDGMENT : ASHOK MENON, J. 1. Since common questions arise in these two Writ Appeals filed by the writ petitioner-KSEB challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.9976/2014 and ZWPC No.152/2014 respectively, both these appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Both the Writ Petitions were filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) challenging the orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) as well as the appellate judgments of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The question pertains to jurisdiction of the CDRF to decide the matters which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act' for short). It is the submission for the KSEB that the CDRF does not have the jurisdiction to decide such matters and therefore, the orders of the CDRF as well as the appellate judgments of the State commission are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the KSEB has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) KLT SN 29 [Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd v. Anis Ahamed], AIR 2000 Ker. 250 [General Manager Telecom, Trivandrum v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum] and 2002 (2) KLT 641 [Malabar Palace v. Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission] in support of their contention challenging the maintainability on jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge relied on the decisions in 2011 (13) SCALE 584 [Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors] and 2012(4) KLT 46 (SC) [Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory] to dismiss the writs. 3. In both the appeals the KSEB consumers had approached the CDRF preferring complaints. The complaints were allowed by the CDRF. Against these orders, the KSEB preferred appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeals were disposed of by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the finding of the CDRF. The learned single Judge observed that the proper remedy of the KSEB should have been to prefer an appeal before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Instead, the KSEB preferred to file Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge observed that inasmuch as the KSEB had not resorted to the alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the judgments of the State Commission before the National Commission, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Instead, the KSEB preferred to file Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge observed that inasmuch as the KSEB had not resorted to the alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the judgments of the State Commission before the National Commission, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The learned Single Judge also relied on the decisions in Nivedita Sharma and Cicily Kallarackal ( supra) to hold that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to challenge the judgment of the State Commission and hence the Writ Petitions were dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissals of the Writ petitions, the KSEB is before us seeking reliefs and interference against the findings of the learned Single Judge. 5. Heard both sides. 6. KSEB was before the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the judgments of the Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission which had confirmed the orders of the CDRF allowing the complaints filed by the consumers of the KSEB. KSEB had filed objections before the CDRF contending that the Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints by the consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act against the action taken by the KSEB under Section 124 read with Sections 125 & 126 as well as under Section 135 of the Act for theft or unauthorised use of electricity. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (supra) in support of his argument. The facts in the above cited decision were also pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity by a consumer and in paragraphs 45 to 47, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:- “45. The facts in the above cited decision were also pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity by a consumer and in paragraphs 45 to 47, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:- “45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of “complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 46. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 47. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that: (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint”as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. (iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”.” 7. In the instant case also, the officers of the KSEB had under Section 135 of the Act as well as under the provisions of the Penal Code proceeded against the consumers for theft of electricity. In view of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited decision, the CDRF was not competent to decide the dispute. In fact, orders of the CDRF (Exts.P5 and P4 in WA Nos.740/2014 and 788/2014, respectively) did not even answer the question challenging the jurisdiction raised by the KSEB. In the appeals also, the State Commission did not arrive at a specific finding regarding the jurisdiction. But, at least, it is mentioned in the judgments that the KSEB had raised the question of jurisdiction and maintainability. 8. The learned Single Judge had relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions. In the appeals also, the State Commission did not arrive at a specific finding regarding the jurisdiction. But, at least, it is mentioned in the judgments that the KSEB had raised the question of jurisdiction and maintainability. 8. The learned Single Judge had relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions. The first one is Nivedita Sharma (supra), wherein it is held that when there is an alternate remedy of appeal provided under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, the appeal shall be entertained by the National Commission and decided on merits, and the High Court should not have entertained a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similarly, in Cicily Kallarackal (supra), it was held that an appeal from the order of the National Commission lies only before the Supreme Court and it cannot be questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as statutory appeal in terms of Section 27A(1)(c) lies to the Supreme Court and directions were issued to caution High Courts that it will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain Writ Petitions against such orders of the Commission. 9. The decision in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (supra) was rendered by the very same Judges, who rendered the decision in Nivedita Sharma (supra). We observe that the decisions in Nivedita Sharma (supra) and Cicily Kallarackal (supra) would only state that the aggrieved party has to challenge the order passed by any District Forum in an appeal before the State Forum and not by filing a Writ petition. But the position will be different when the order is per se without jurisdiction, as is held in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (supra). The Honourable Supreme Court in 2008 (1) SCC 1 [Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others], held that when the order under challenge is per se without jurisdiction, then the order can be challenged straight away by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inspite of the alternate statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. The jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inspite of the alternate statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. 10. In the decision, 2011 KHC 4978 (SC) [Executive Engineer and Another v. Sri.Seetaram Rice Mill], it is held that the provisions of Section 126 read with Section 127 of the Act is a code in itself. Right from the initiation of the proceeding, from conducting an inspection, to the right to file an appeal before the appellate authority, all matters are squarely covered under these provisions. In para 57, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. In the present case, the High Court did not fall in error of jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition but certainly failed to finally exercise the jurisdiction within the prescribed limitations of law for exercise of such jurisdiction. Keeping in view the functions and expertise of the specialized body constituted under the Act including the assessing officer, it would have been proper exercise of jurisdiction, if the High Court, upon entertaining and deciding the writ petition on a jurisdictional issue, would have remanded the matter to the competent authority for its adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. In the facts of the present case, the High Court should have answered the question of law relating to lack of jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction in futility without travelling into and determining the validity of the demand which squarely fell within the domain of the specialized authority. The High Court should have remanded the case to the assessing officer with a direction to the respondent to file its objections including non-applicability of the tariff before the assessing authority and for determination in accordance with law.” 11. The CDRF should, therefore, have left it to the assessing authority under the Act to determine the amount due. The High Court should have remanded the case to the assessing officer with a direction to the respondent to file its objections including non-applicability of the tariff before the assessing authority and for determination in accordance with law.” 11. The CDRF should, therefore, have left it to the assessing authority under the Act to determine the amount due. The learned Single Judge did not consider the lack of propriety displayed by the CDRF as well as the State Commission, in not deciding the question of jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned judgments in both the Writ Petitions passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside and the orders of the CDRF (Exts.P5 and P4 in WA Nos.740/2014 and 788/2014, respectively) as well as the judgments of the State Forum (Exts.P6 and P5 in WA Nos.740/2014 and 788/2014, respectively) are all to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. We do so. The consumers in both the Writ Petitions are at liberty to resort to the remedies before the Authorities and the appellate forum provided under the Act which shall examine the objections raised by the consumers in both these cases and arrive at a decision. The same shall be done within a month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In W.A. No.740/2014, the CDRF has directed issuance of fresh bill which is not proper. The consumer therein definitely could challenge the bill but before the statutory authorities. Hence, if the consumer files an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy, the connection restored on the orders of the CDRF will not be disconnected. The further proceedings, if appeals are filed, will depend on the findings in appeal. The Writ Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.