ORDER : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Avery peculiar circumstance, which has emerged for consideration in the present Writ Petition, where the petitioner has given challenge to the impugned orders dated 10th May, 2019, as passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, as well as the subsequent order, rendered by the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) in accordance with the same provision of the Act of 2003, on 31st July, 2019. 2. On scrutiny of the impugned orders which are put under challenge, it had resulted into the dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner, being Complaint No. 58 of 2019, Sultan Ahmed v. Executive Engineer, which has been on the ground and on the limited count itself that in accordance with the provisions sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to be read with sub-section (8) of Section 42, once a consumer, who has raised the complaint or agitated his grievance, has already chosen a Forum for the redressal of his grievance, then invocation of filing of the complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, would be barred by Sub-section (8) of Section 42 to be read with Sub-regulation 3.1 of UERC (Guideline for Appointment of Members and Procedure to be followed by the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer) Regulation, 2019. It is on this limited count that the claim of the petitioner raised by virtue of the complaint was rejected. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition has very candidly placed on record the facts and documents, that for the redressal of his grievances as against the impugned demand raised by the respondent for the electricity dues payable by him, based on certain inspections, which were conducted by them, he had approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, as constituted under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, which was decided against him by the Forum on 24th August, 2013. 4. Being aggrieved against the order of District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Forum, i.e. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was registered as First Appeal No. 292 of 2013. 4. Being aggrieved against the order of District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Forum, i.e. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was registered as First Appeal No. 292 of 2013. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; while dealing with the appeal under special statute had while dismissing the Appeal vide its judgment dated 26th April, 2016, had given the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 5. It is under this pretext, the attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that even after his concurrent failure before the Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he would still have a liberty to approach the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act of 2005. 6. This argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not impressive and acceptable by this Court, for the reason being that the constitution of the Appellate Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and particularly, with regard to the powers vested with it under Section 15 of the Act of 1986, would be only confined to an adjudication, which could be made by the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, dealing with the complaint, it could have either allowed or dismissed the Appeal under Section 15 of the Act of 1986, against the judgment rendered by the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, and it could not have derived or self-ordained the powers to grant the liberty to the appellant therein, i.e. petitioner, to approach the CGRF as constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003, because that would not be the scope of powers vested with the Appellate Forum created under the special statute of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum created under an Act, cannot adjudicate on an issue relating to a remedy available under a different Act, by giving liberty to invoke the same. 7. The Forum created under an Act, cannot adjudicate on an issue relating to a remedy available under a different Act, by giving liberty to invoke the same. 7. Having held so, since the State Consumer Grievance Redressal Commission did not have competence to refer the matter or for that matter to grant the liberty, under that pretext filing of the complaint before the CGRF, holding it to be tenable for the determination of the liability harnessed upon the petitioner, I am of the view that the said Forum under sub-section (5) of Section 42, was barred in view of the provision contained under Sub-section (8) of Section 42 of the Act to be read with 3.1 of the UERC Regulation of 2019. The aforesaid provision creates an absolute restriction on filing of subsequent complaint after the failure of the consumer, from a forum which he has chosen for redressal of his grievance. The Clause 3.1 is quoted hereunder:- "The Forum shall not entertain a grievance if it pertains to the same subject-matter for which any proceeding before any Court, authority or any other Forum is pending or a decree, award or a final order has already been passed by any competent court, authority or Forum." 8. Even otherwise also logically, I am of the view that if there is a liability fixed upon the Consumer, he can only have a recourse for redressal of his grievance as against one Forum available to him under law, and he cannot in an event of failure from one forum invoke another forum independently created under a different Act, which has got equivalent jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, for the reason being that the controversy has had to be laid at rest at some point of time. There cannot be cumulative proceedings for redress of the same cause. Hence, the reason which has been assigned by the Ombudsman in judgment of 31st July, 2019, attracting its implication from sub-section (8) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act of 2003, to be read with sub-regulation 3.1 of UERC Regulation, 2019, I do not find any error apparently committed by the Courts below by the impugned order, which has been put to challenge in the Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. Consequently, I hold that the compliant itself was not tenable and that has been rightly rejected by both the Courts below. Consequently, the Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.