This miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioner in RP no. 334 of 2011 seeking review, under the provisions of section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, he Act, of the order dated 12.08.2011 of this Commission allowing the above-mentioned revision petition. 2. On hearing the counsel, I am satisfied that on facts, there is an error apparent in the order dated 12.08.2011, which can be corrected without any notice to the respondent/complainant because the corrections will not cause any prejudice to the latter. Accordingly, I allow the Miscellaneous Application at the stage of admission and direct the following factual changes (indicated in italics) to be made in the existing paragraphs 4 and 8 of the order in question: (i) Paragraph 4: he facts of the case and the documents on record leave no room for doubt that this case involves prima facie dishonest abstraction of electricity by the respondent. It is also seen that the petitioner, having noticed theft of electricity on inspection of the respondent premises in the presence of the respondent initiated action under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the respondent availed of his rights under the relevant Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations. (ii) Paragraph 8: rom this, it is quite clear that offences under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dealing specifically with theft (or dishonest abstraction) of electricity in various ways (including tampering of meters) [and offences under sections 136 to 140 as well as 150] are to be tried and decided only by Special Courts to be constituted by the State Government concerned under section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As held in the above-mentioned decision of this Commission, such disputes relating to theft of electricity under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would thus not be within the purview of the Consumer Fora constituted under the Act. Moreover, in this case, the respondent clearly availed of the process of adjudication of the dispute by filing his say in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the petitioner under the relevant Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations. It is settled legal position that having already participated in availing of the process of adjudication of a dispute under a statue, a person cannot switch to (or simultaneously/subsequently avail of) the alternative or additional remedy provided under section 3 of the Act.