JUDGMENT : The Assistant Executive Engineer of Kerala State Electricity Board Limited is before this Court challenging Exts.P5 and P7 orders. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara in O.P.No.1273/2014 and Ext.P7 is an order passed in R.P.No.1379/2015 in the said O.P. 2. Petitioner states that the Anti Power Theft Squard (APTS), Kottayam conducted an inspection in the premises of Hedge Equities Ltd, which is a Stock broker/Equity Company, of which the second respondent is Director. The APTS detected misuse of energy, it is alleged. According to the petitioner, the tariff under which charges were levied from the second respondent is LT-VII A. But the actual tariff applicable to stock broking institutions is LT-VI C. In the circumstances, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section issued a provisional bill for Rs.25,242/-, upon the second respondent. After hearing the second respondent, Ext.P1 final order was passed invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the second respondent filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. As per Ext.P2 order dated 6.6.2014, the Appellate Authority found that the provisional assessment as well as final order are just and proper and accordingly rejected the appeal filed by the second respondent. The second respondent thereupon approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the 1st respondent, filing OP No.1273/2014 3. Petitioner states that an Appellate order passed under section 127 of the Electricity Act is final and can be challenged only by way of Writ Petition before this Court. Though the petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to entertain an issue which is already adjudicated under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum proceeded to adjudicate the matter and after hearing the parties, directed the Petitioner to refund the amount collected from the second respondent by adjustments against the future bills of the petitioner. To arrive at this conclusion, the Forum categorically found that the second respondent's establishment falls under LT- VII A tariff. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 Review Petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Though the petitioner filed the Review Petition belatedly, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum entertained the Review Petition on merits. To arrive at this conclusion, the Forum categorically found that the second respondent's establishment falls under LT- VII A tariff. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 Review Petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Though the petitioner filed the Review Petition belatedly, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum entertained the Review Petition on merits. After hearing the Review Petition, the Forum held that there was no misuse of energy by the second respondent and that the power supplied for share broking Company was not at all used for any other purpose, to attract proceedings under Section 126 of the Act. Therefore, the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the second respondent, the same being a dispute against realisation of excess charges due from a consumer. On those premises, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dismissed the Review Petition as per Ext.P7 order dated 18.4.2015. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in the Writ petition. It is stated therein that the petitioner is making a vain attempt to bring the above case within the ambit of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act. The second respondent is involved in share broking business and is registered with SEBI and is a member of National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The Tariff LT-VI C was never assigned to the second respondent by the petitioner at any point of time. As per the information received by the second respondent under the Right to Information Act also, stock broking without money lending would be under LT-VII A tariff. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent is not involved in any business having cash transaction. Nor has the firm engaged in any banking activities. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent's establishment falls under Tariff LT-VI C, is unsustainable. The second respondent has not resorted to unauthorised use of electricity at all. Therefore, invocation of Section 126 by the petitioner was unwarranted and unsustainable. Exts.P5 and P7 orders of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum are therefore just and proper and are not liable to be interfered with. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the second respondent. 7. From the pleadings it is evident that the second respondent's establishment was a stock broking Company which is not involved in any cash transaction or banking business. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the second respondent. 7. From the pleadings it is evident that the second respondent's establishment was a stock broking Company which is not involved in any cash transaction or banking business. Therefore, evidently the Company will fall under tariff LT-VII A only, in view of tariff notification dated 27.9.2014. The said tariff was assigned to the second respondent's establishment by the Electricity Board itself. It cannot be said that 2nd respondent has been misusing electricity. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum does not have the jurisdictional authority to entertain a claim adjudicated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in view of Section 2(1)F, a complaint to CGRF is denied under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005 which specifically excludes grievances connected with unauthorised use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act. Therefore, when the Board has initiated action under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and when the second respondent has participated in those proceedings, the second respondent cannot now turn around and say that he has a right to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The second respondent has voluntarily subjected himself to the proceedings under Section 126 and filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. After availing the statutory remedies under Section 127 of the Act, the second respondent cannot now argue that his remedy is before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Taking into account the facts of the case, it is evident that the second respondent's Company will fall under Tariff LT-VII A only and Tariff LT-VI C will not be applicable to the second respondent for the reason that the second respondent is not involved in any business having cash transaction or in any banking business. Therefore, issuance of a provisional bill for Rs.25,242/-and finalisation of the same as per Ext.P1 were unwarranted. Therefore, issuance of a provisional bill for Rs.25,242/-and finalisation of the same as per Ext.P1 were unwarranted. The question therefore is whether the first respondent was justified in interfering with the proceedings under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act when it had no jurisdiction and if so, whether this Court will be justified in interfering with the order of CGRF for its want of jurisdiction? 10. I find that since the 2nd respondent has established his claim to continue to be levied electricity charges under Tariff LT-VII A, interference with the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum will only result in injustice, in as much as the second respondent will have to take recourse to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India again challenging Ext.P1 order. The Honourable Apex Court has held in the judgment in Roshan Deen V. Preeti Lal [ (2002) 1 SCC 100 ] that the very purpose of conferring constitutional powers on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law, the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. In this case, interference with the order of CGRF would indeed result in injustice. In the circumstances, I decline jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The Writ Petition is hence dismissed.