JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the celebrated authority by the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anis Ahmed (2013) 8 SCC 491. He submits that as per last para, the petitioner is consumer because there is restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider and the consumer suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provided has charged in excess the price fixed under Order or by any law. 2. We are not convinced with this argument. This is a case where the electricity was used unauthorisedly as is apparent from paras 39, 40 and 41 of the said judgment. 3. Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly, specifically and unequivocally states that “any person aggrieved by the final order made under Section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission to an appellate authority as may be prescribed”. Consequently, this Commission has no jurisdiction but the liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances before the appropriate forum. The petitioner can take help from Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583 so far as the question of limitation is concerned. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
