ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2002 of 2013, New Vallabh Grih Nirman vs. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. & Anr., by which, appeal was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner, consumer of opposite party received bill for a sum of Rs.4,30,620/- in February, 2013 inspite of making payment of electricity bills regularly and his connection was disconnected on the basis of some inspection. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that on 7.2.2013 an inspection was made in complainant’s premises in his presence and he was found committing theft of electricity by using electricity more than sanctioned load and panchnama was prepared and on that basis bill was raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. It was further submitted that complaint was not maintainable before Consumer Fora and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3. Learned District Forum, after hearing parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that so-called inspection was contrary to Rules and procedure and in such circumstances, there was no theft of electricity even then learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence Revision Petition be admitted. 6. It is not disputed that opposite party inspected premises of complainant in his presence and it was found that complainant was using more load than sanctioned load, which amounted to theft of electricity and on that basis panchnama was prepared and disputed bill was raised. Hon’ble Apex Court in III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)-U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed has held that in case of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Whether proper procedure and Rules were followed by opposite party while conducting inspection or not, need not be considered here, when prima facie there is evidence of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed error in dismissing appeal. Complainant is free to approach appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievance and he can assail alleged inspection panchnama before that authority. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed at admission stage. | 
