PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

Proxy counsel for the petitioners present.  Proxy counsel for the respondent is also present. Counsel for the respondent wants a date to file the reply but we decline to grant the same because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authority reported in the case of ““U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad”, [(2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 491] has debarred the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora.  This is a case of theft of electricity as per the version of the authority. Consequently, the order passed by the Fora below are set aside.  Revision Petition is accepted.  The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

However, the complainant is given liberty to get his grievances redressed from the appropriate forum, as per Law.  He can seek help from the authority reported in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583]” in respect of limitation.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of.