This appeal u/s 27(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (C.P.Act) is directed against the order dated 16.5.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur in E.A.No. 13 of 2017 arising out of CC No. 03 of 2017. The appellants were the J.Drs/OPs whereas the D.Hr/respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum.

      E.A.No. 13 of 2017 was filed by the respondent for compliance of the order dated 30.6.2017 passed in CC No. 03 of 2017 directing the appellants representing Electricity Distribution Company CESU to deduct Rs.15,752/- and revise the bills issued to the respondent/complainant.  

      Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in CC No. 03 of 2017 the respondent/complainant assailed the legality of the assessment made U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the year 2009. In the complaint, the CESU contended in the written version that the complaint was not only maintainable in view of the bar of limitation but also was without jurisdiction in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vrs. Anis Ahmad 2013(3) CPR 670 (SC). In this connection learned counsel for the appellants brought our attention to the copy of the order dated 30.6.2017 passed by the learned District Forum in CC No. 03 of 2017 wherein it was categorically held that the complainant assailing the assessment made U/s 126 of the Electricity Act is maintainable before the Consumer Fora. It is further contended that since order dated 30.6.23017 has been passed without jurisdiction the order is a nulity. Such an order can be challenged at any time in any proceeding, including in  a co-lateral proceeding. In support of the contention learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Mehta vrs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) through his Lrs.  (Civil Appeal No. 4599 of 1989 rendered on 10.11.1989) and in Sarup Singh and another vrs. Union of India and another (Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 2005 rendered on 25.11.2010). It is contended that the learned executing Forum without considering the contentions have passed the impugned order imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- for non-compliance of the order passed in the complaint and directing the appellants to comply the order within 15 days.

      We have perused the order dated 30.6.2017 passed in CC No. 3 of 2017 as well as the impugned order dated 16.5.2018 passed in EA No. 13 of 2017 by the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur.

       The specific case of eh appellants in the complaint was that the complaint is not maintainable in view of law laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Power Corporation  and others – vrs. Anis Ahmad (Supra) wherein it has been held that complaint against assessment u/s 126 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before Consumer Fora. The learned District Forum, however, proceeded to pass final order in the complaint in violation of law laid down by the Hon’bel Supreme Court.

       In such circumstances, it is neither contended that order passed in the Consumer Complaint is without jurisdiction and consequently the impugned order passed in the Execution Case is also without jurisdiction. The impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.

       Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

       Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.