Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. None appeared for the respondent/Complainant even after service. Complainant filed complaint before District Forum and it was alleged that penalty of Rs.20,000/- had been levied on Complainant wrongly on the ground of finding seals of the meter broken, which may be quashed. Opposite party-petitioner resisted complaint and submitted that consumer fora has no jurisdiction as complainant was found guilty of committing theft. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs.20,000/- along interest @ 9% per annum. Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 4.6.2007 against which this revision petition has been filed. Learned proxy counsel submitted in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, (2013) 8 SCC 491 that consumer fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint pertaining to theft of electricity, hence, revision petition, be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. We agree with the learned proxy counsel for the petitioner that complaint regarding imposition of penalty on the ground of theft of electricity is not maintainable, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anis Ahamd’s, case (supra), hence impugned order is liable to set aside. Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 4.6.2007 passed by State Commission in First Appeal No.2513 of 2006, SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division, UBHVNL, Pipli, District Kurukshetra Vs. Gulzar Singh and order of District Forum dated 14.8.2006 passed in Complaint No.92 of 2005, are set aside and complaint stands dismissed and Complainant/respondent is given liberty to approach appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act, for redressal of his grievance. | 
