JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal is directed against an order of July 25, 2022 by which the appellant's writ petition has been disposed of by affording 10 days' time to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for redressal of the appellant's grievance, during which period the notice for payment and disconnection will remain inoperative. 2. The appellant claims that the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Redressal of Grievances) Regulations, 2007 contemplate the disposal of a complaint made to a Commission set up thereunder within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. The appellant also refers to Regulation 10 of the said Regulations that requires a process of mediation and conciliation to be attempted before adjudication of a complaint carried to the relevant Commission. According to the appellant, a committee has been set up for such purpose and it would be prejudicial to the appellant to make payment in terms of the impugned demand notice without the process of mediation and conciliation being completed. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the order impugned that grants only 10 days' time for the process of adjudication to be completed by the relevant Commission as the appellant claims that such short time may not be adequate for the mediation or conciliation proceedings to be concluded. 4. At the end of the day what has to be noticed is that there is a claim that the distribution company has against the appellant on account of supply of electricity and a claim in damages that the appellant has raised. The appellant has to first establish the factum of having suffered loss and damage before the quantum of the damages that can be assessed. Merely because a consumer has raised a claim in damages against a distribution company after receiving supply of electricity, the claim of the distribution company cannot be suspended till the adjudication of the claim in damages is made. 5. This is a point of principle. If a consumer's claim against the distribution company is given primacy over the consumer's obligation to pay in terms of a demand, fanciful claims would spring up from every corner and the distribution company would be seriously impaired in carrying on its activities. 6. 5. This is a point of principle. If a consumer's claim against the distribution company is given primacy over the consumer's obligation to pay in terms of a demand, fanciful claims would spring up from every corner and the distribution company would be seriously impaired in carrying on its activities. 6. At any rate, it cannot be the appellant's case that the distribution company would vanish overnight or may not have the means to satisfy any legitimate claim of the appellant as may be ascertained by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and order impugned do not call for any interference. The appellant will be obliged to meet the demand notice dated July 12, 2022. However, the payment made by the appellant in terms of such notice will not prejudice the appellant's claim against the distribution company before the appropriate authority. 8. In view of the order passed by the Single Bench, the appropriate commission should give an early date for taking up the appellant's complaint before it. 9. WA No.29 of 2022 is disposed of on the above basis and without interfering with the judgment and order impugned. 10. There will be no order as to costs.