JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, “the KSEB”) seeking to quash Ext.P5 order issued by the second respondent, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:- The first respondent/consumer filed Ext.P1 complaint before the second respondent alleging shortcomings/defects in the service of the KSEB regarding non-service of notice to defaulting consumers, noticing that the KSEB is in the practice of issuing demand and disconnection notice to the consumers in general. The main grievance of the first respondent was that the KSEB is not issuing a separate notice of disconnection before the disconnection is effected. Though the first respondent did not receive any such notice, apprehending that he will also be served with such a notice, he requested the Chairman of KSEB to start issuance of a legally prescribed notice for disconnection. Since there was no reply, he approached the second respondent with the complaint. The Secretary (Administration) of the KSEB filed an objection, contending that the first respondent has no allegation or grievance that the KSEB had done anything against him, which satisfies the definition enumerated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, (for short, “the Regulations”). It was further contended that the first respondent neither has a complaint nor he has been authorized by any other consumer to file a complaint before the second respondent; and hence, the complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent is not maintainable. The second respondent, as per Ext.P3 order, after elaborate consideration of the issue, finding that the complaint is maintainable, directed the KSEB to issue a separate notice for payment of electricity dues and for disconnection of supply for non payment of electricity dues. The KSEB filed Ext.P4 review petition before the second respondent, contending that the demand cum disconnection notice issued by the KSEB satisfies the conditions stipulated in Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (for short, “the Code”), as well as paragraph 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”). According to the KSEB, the demand cum disconnection notice provides prior information to the consumer regarding the date of disconnection well in advance and hence, the finding of the second respondent ought to have been reviewed. According to the KSEB, the demand cum disconnection notice provides prior information to the consumer regarding the date of disconnection well in advance and hence, the finding of the second respondent ought to have been reviewed. However, Ext.P4 review petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 12.01.2017. Aggrieved by this, the KSEB has come up before this Court. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/KSEB submitted that the complaint filed by the first respondent is not maintainable under Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations and the finding of the second respondent that a separate notice for disconnection is necessary, is against the provisions of the Code and the Act. It is pointed out that in order to maintain a complaint before the second respondent, the complainant should have a grievance as enumerated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. To substantiate the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Prabhu K.N. v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Others [2021 KHC 704]. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the complaint filed by the first respondent is maintainable before the second respondent since there was violation of the Regulations in the KSEB issuing demand cum disconnection notice, which is against Section 56(1) of the Act and Regulation 138(1) of the Code. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent was apprehending that he will also be issued with the very same notice, which will put him into great difficulty. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the second respondent does not deserve any interference by this Court and the writ petition is only to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. The primary question to be decided is whether the complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent is maintainable or not. 6. For a better appreciation of the issue involved, it is important to quote the relevant provisions. Regulation 2(1)(e) of the Regulations defines “complainant” as follows: “2. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. The primary question to be decided is whether the complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent is maintainable or not. 6. For a better appreciation of the issue involved, it is important to quote the relevant provisions. Regulation 2(1)(e) of the Regulations defines “complainant” as follows: “2. Definitions.-(1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, xxxx (e) 'Complainant' means- (i) any consumer of electricity supplied by the licensee including applicants for new connections; (ii) a voluntary electricity consumer association/forum or other body corporate or group of electricity consumers; (iii) the Central Government or State Government -who or which makes the complaint; (iv) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or representatives. Therefore, as per Regulation 2(1)(e) of the Regulations, any consumer of electricity supplied by the licensee including applicants for new connections, is a “complainant”. Therefore, there is no doubt that the first respondent, being a consumer of electricity, is a “complainant” under the afore provision. 7. The next question is whether the complaint filed by the first respondent will come within the definition of “complaint” as enumerated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. To constitute a “complaint”, the conditions stipulated in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations have to be satisfied, which reads thus: “2. Definitions.-(1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, xxxx (f) 'Complaint' means any grievance made by a complainant in writing on: - (i) defect or deficiency in electricity service provided by the licensee; (ii) unfair or restrictive trade practices of licensee in providing electricity services; (iii) charging of a price in excess of the price fixed by the Commission for supply of electricity and allied services; (iv) errors in billing; (v) erroneous disconnection of supply; (vi) electricity services which are unsafe or hazardous to public life in contravention of the provisions of any law or rule in force; or (vii) any other grievance connected with the supply of electricity by the licensee except those related to the following: (1) unauthorised use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act; (2) offences and penalties as provided under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act and (3) accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity under Section 161 of the Act. 8. 8. Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations reveals that if there is any defect or deficiency in electricity supplied by the licensee or there is any unfair or restrictive trade practice of licensee in providing electricity services etc., a complainant can approach the second respondent for redressal of his/her grievance. Here, the issue raised by the first respondent is that the KSEB is issuing a consolidated demand cum disconnection notice instead of separate notices demanding electricity dues and informing disconnection for non payment of electricity dues. For deciding the afore issue, it is also relevant to extract Regulations 138 and 139 of the Code, which read thus: 138. Here, the issue raised by the first respondent is that the KSEB is issuing a consolidated demand cum disconnection notice instead of separate notices demanding electricity dues and informing disconnection for non payment of electricity dues. For deciding the afore issue, it is also relevant to extract Regulations 138 and 139 of the Code, which read thus: 138. Grounds for disconnection.-(1) The licensee shall not disconnect the supply of electricity to any consumer except on any one or more of the following grounds:- (a) if the consumer defaults in payment of the dues payable to the licensee as per the bill or demand notice or any order issued by a competent authority, within the period stipulated therein; (b) if the security provided by the consumer has become insufficient or the consumer fails to provide additional security as required by the licensee; (c) if the consumer is found to have indulged in theft of electricity; (d) if the failure to disconnect is likely to cause health hazard or safety risk or damage to property or to the consumer or to any other person; (e) if the conduct or continuance of any business or industry or activity being carried out in any premises becomes unlawful due to lack of necessary permission from the competent authority or due to withdrawal of such permission by any competent authority; (f) if the licensee is mandated to do so by an order of a legal authority, competent to issue such a mandate; (g) if the licensee is entitled to do so under an agreement with the consumer; (h) if the installation of the consumer does not comply with the applicable rules or any other reasonable requirements stipulated by the licensee; (i) if the consumer has contravened the provisions of the Code or of the Act, which entitles the licensee to disconnect the supply; (j) if the wiring, apparatus, equipment or installation at the premises of the consumer is found to be defective or unsafe or there is leakage of electricity; (k) if the consumer is found to have altered the position of the meter and related apparatus or if the consumer uses any apparatus or appliance other than the ones authorised by the licensee; 66 (l) if the consumer uses the energy in such a manner as to endanger the service lines, equipment, electric supply mains and other works of the licensee; (m)if it is found that energy is being used in any manner which unduly or improperly interferes with the efficient supply of electricity to any other consumer; (n) if at any time the consumer is found to be using energy for a purpose other than for which it was intended or provided; (o) if the consumer extends or allows supply of electricity to any other premises from his connection without the permission of the licensee. (p) if the supply of electricity to the consumer is liable to be disconnected as per any of the provisions in the Code. (2) In the case of detection of theft of electricity, the supply of electricity shall be disconnected immediately as provided in subsection (1A) of Section 135 of the Act. 139. Procedure for disconnection.-(1) The licensee shall, in the case of disconnection proposed on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138 above, issue a disconnection notice in writing, as per Section 56 of the Act, with a notice period of not less than fifteen clear days, intimating the consumer about the grounds for disconnection and directing him to pay the dues with penal charges within the notice period. (2) If the consumer fails to remit the dues within such notice period, the licensee may disconnect the service of the consumer on the expiry of the said notice period, by cutting off the supply in the manner as the licensee may deem fit: Provided that the licensee shall not disconnect the supply to a consumer under this sub-regulation, if the consumer deposits under protest, an amount equal to the sum claimed from him or equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month, calculated on the basis of the average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee: Provided further that the supply shall not be disconnected after 1:00 PM on any day or on holidays so that the consumer is not deprived of a chance to remit the dues on the same day and get reconnection. (3) The licensee shall disconnect the supply to the consumer immediately if the disconnection is on the grounds in clauses (c) and (d) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138 and the consumer may be given intimation to that effect soon after the disconnection. (4) In the case of disconnection as per clauses (e) to (p) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138, the supply shall be disconnected only after giving a notice for a period not less than seven clear days and intimating the consumer about the grounds for disconnection. (4) In the case of disconnection as per clauses (e) to (p) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138, the supply shall be disconnected only after giving a notice for a period not less than seven clear days and intimating the consumer about the grounds for disconnection. (5) The supply shall be disconnected only if the grounds of the disconnection as mentioned in clauses (e) to (p) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138 are not removed or rectified within the notice period. (6) The licensee shall, after disconnection on the grounds mentioned in sub-regulation (1) of regulation 138, give intimation to the consumer as per format given in Annexure -18 to the Code, to remove the cause of disconnection within forty five days, failing which the supply may be dismantled. 9. On a perusal of Regulation 139 of the Code, it is seen that the said provision does not mandate for a separate notice. It only says that a notice of not less than 15 clear days, informing the consumer that the power supply would be disconnected if the consumer defaults payment of the electricity bill, is sufficient. In the case on hand, the consumer does not have a case that the demand notice does not include a 15 clear days’ notice informing the consumer that if the consumer commits default in making payment of electricity bill, the electricity supply would be disconnected. His grievance is that a separate notice has to be issued for payment of bill as well as for disconnecting the electricity supply. On a reading of the afore provisions as well as Section 56 of the Act, it is clear that a 15 clear days’ notice in writing given to the consumer before disconnection, is sufficient. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submitted that the due date for payment, the date for payment with penalty and the date of disconnection are mentioned in the demand notice and hence, it complies with the mandates in the relevant provisions and therefore, there is no necessity for issuing a separate disconnection notice. 11. The second respondent found that the purpose of notice is to alert somebody about the major injury to be faced and hence, to alert a defaulter, a separate notice is necessary. 11. The second respondent found that the purpose of notice is to alert somebody about the major injury to be faced and hence, to alert a defaulter, a separate notice is necessary. I find that the said reasoning of the second respondent is against the settled position of law by this Court in Prabhu K.N. (supra), wherein this Court elaborately considered the issue as to whether a separate notice of disconnection is mandated in Regulation 139 of the Code or not. In Prabhu K.N. (supra), this Court held in paragraphs 27 to 29 as follows: “27. What is relevant and important, contained in Regulation 139 of the Supply Code, 2014 is that there should be a 15 days' clear notice informing the consumer that the power supply would be disconnected, if the consumer defaults in the payment of the electricity bill. Power connection can be disconnected by the Board for various reasons as are specified in Regulation 138. Therefore, if the power has to be disconnected for any other reason other than for non-payment of the electricity dues, the petitioner may be correct that the Board should have to issue a notice intimating the consumer that for the reasons assigned therein, power connection has to be disconnected and that notice, if issued separately, should mention the sufficient period as prescribed under regulation 139 of the Supply Code 2014. 28. This we say because under Regulation 123(1)(q), the due date of the bill amount has to be shown compulsorily. Similarly, under Regulation 123(2)(f), the date of disconnection, if payment is not made within the due date, is also to be notified. 29. A conjoint reading of Regulations 123 and 139, as discussed above, makes it clear that the notice of disconnection needs to be notified in the bill itself, incorporating the imperative condition of 15 days clear notice, to be provided.” 12. Hence, the finding of the second respondent that separate notices have to be issued for collecting the dues of electricity charges and for disconnection for non payment of the dues, is found to be illegal. As I have already found, the reasoning of the second respondent is against the statutory provisions mandated in Regulations 138 & 139 of the Code and Section 56 of the Act; and hence, the finding of the second respondent that the complaint was maintainable, is against the provisions of law. As I have already found, the reasoning of the second respondent is against the statutory provisions mandated in Regulations 138 & 139 of the Code and Section 56 of the Act; and hence, the finding of the second respondent that the complaint was maintainable, is against the provisions of law. If it is not necessary for the KSEB to issue separate notice for collecting dues and for disconnection, it cannot be said that there was any defect/deficiency in the notice issued by the KSEB or there was any unfair or restrictive trade practice of the licensee in providing the services, nor the complaint attracted any of the ingredients in Section 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. 13. Therefore, I find that the complaint filed by the complainant does not come within the definition of Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. Since it is already held in Prabhu K.N. (supra) that a separate demand notice as well as disconnection notice is not required, it cannot be said that there was any defect or deficiency in the electricity provided by the KSEB or there is any unfair or restrictive trade practice of licensee in providing electricity services or there was any error in billing etc. Though the first respondent is a complainant coming within the definition of Regulation 2(1)(e) of the Regulations, the complaint filed by the first respondent does not come within the purview of Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside.