Despite service the respondent remains unrepresented. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. -2- This revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Uttar Haryana Vitran Nigam Ltd., is directed against order dated 04.09.2007, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.863 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against order dated 28.12.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short “the District Forum”) in Compliant No.279 of 2004. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint; set aside the notice Ex.C4 dated 02.12.2003 and the bills demanding additional amount of Rs.20,253/-, with a direction to the Petitioner herein, not to charge the said amount from the Complainant and also not to disconnect his electric connection for non-payment of the said amount. In our opinion, in light of the Authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others vs. Anis Ahmad, (2013 8 SCC 491) wherein it has been held that where on allegation of theft of electricity, an order of assessment under Section 126 or action under Sections 135 to 140 of -3- the Electricity Act, 2003, is initiated, a Complaint under the Act would not be maintainable, the Revision Petition merits acceptance. In the present case, it has been observed by the State Commission that on 26.11.2003 the officials of the Nigam inspected the premises of the Complainant and he was found using the supply for Toka Machine of 2 BHP from a cut before meter through 2/C PVC of 30 Meters. He was also having the connected lead of 0.980 K.W. and a load of 1.492 K.W. was found directly taken from the line. A checking report was prepared which the Complainant refused to sign. As the Complainant was indulging in theft of energy, penalty amount of Rs.20,253/- was determined for which notice of demand bearing memo No.1404 dated 2.12.2003 was issued to the Complainant. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is on all fours to the facts of the instant case and therefore, the Complaint under the Act was itself not maintainable. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed; orders of the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. -4- It will be open to the Respondent to avail of any other legal remedy as may be available to it, if so advised. | 
