Markandeya Katju, CJ (Oral)

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2005 by which the petition was dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

4. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case as the appellant has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. We have held in a recent Division Bench decision in Ram Kishan vs. NDPL in LPA No. 746/2004 decided on 30.11.2005 that ordinarily no writ petition should be entertained regarding disputes relating to electricity, water, telephone or other kinds of bills if there is a forum provided under the statute or rules and regulations for resolving such disputes as there would be an alternative remedy.

6. So far disputes concerning bills issued under the Electricity Act are concerned, there is a provision for an Ombudsman under Section 42 (6) and a Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act and both these have been created. We have held in the aforesaid decision that both the Ombudsman as well as the Forum have inherent powers of granting interlocutory orders pending decision of the case before them and we are of the opinion that there are also similar powers to grant such relief in an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

7. Hence, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of theor he can go under Section 42 (5) to the Forum or Ombudsman under Section 42 (6) of the Act, whichever provision is applicable.

8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If the appellant avails of the alternative remedy, any observations made by the learned Single Judge will not be taken into consideration.