- (1.) Heard Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bidhan Chandra Rai and Shri Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appearing respondent no.3.
(2.) These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to impeach the order dated 18.05.2012, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.05.2011, passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bareilly Region, Bareilly was rejected. The Ombudsman while rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioners has held that in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Dakschinanchal Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Vidut Lokpal and others, [Writ Petition No.4237 (M/S) of 2008], the representation preferred by the petitioner, which is a Distribution Licensee, was not maintainable under Section 42 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 8 of UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007.
(3.) The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while assailing the validity of the said order dated 18.05.2012, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, is that the finding recorded by the Ombudsman to the effect that the representation against the order passed by the Forum was not maintainable, is based solely on the judgment passed by this Court dated 06.01.2012 in the case of Dakschinanchal Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd., which is contrary to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 15.04.2011 in the case of M/s Jindal Poly Films Ltd. vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow and others, [Writ Petition No.3456 (M/B) of 2011].;