IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1580 OF 2008 (MS) Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and others. …..Petitioners. Versus Electricity Ombudsman and another. …Respondents. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2. 23rd June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Respondent no.2 claims to be the consumer of the licensee, which is Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and says that there is a dispute of bills between the petitioner and respondent no.2, which was raised before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum by the respondent no.2. The grievance of the respondent no.2 was only partly satisfied vide order dated 7.1.2008, therefore, respondent no.2 filed a representation before the Ombudsman / respondent no. 1. The Ombudsman has framed the following issues: “i. Whether the Petition is not the consumer and complainant under the Electricity Act, 2003, if so its effect. ii. Whether the Supply Code, Rules & Regulations of U.P. Regulatory Commission are applicable, if so its effect. iii. Whether under the Electricity Act, the Petitioner is liable to pay the charges for the transmission line? iv. Whether SIDCUL is a necessary party? v. Whether the Respondents are entitled to the supervision charges from the Petitioner? If so, to what extent. vi. Whether the impugned order is against facts, law and is liable to be set aside? vii. What relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled?” The preliminary issue as to the status of respondent no.2 was decided by the Ombudsman in favour of the respondent no. 2 / consumer vide order dated 13.8.2008 holding the respondent no. 2 to be a consumer of the licensee. The petitioners / licensee have therefore challenged this order of the Ombudsman before this Court by way of present writ petition. It is clear from the perusal of the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 that only preliminary issue has been decided by the Ombudsman, whereby it has been held that the respondent no. 2 is the consumer of the petitioners and consequent to this finding, the matter shall now proceed before the Ombudsman under the Electricity Act, on merit. The petitioner no. 1, who is a licensee, has challenged the order of the Ombudsman before this Court stating that since the respondent no. 2 is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it has no remedy to file an application before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or to file a representation before the Ombudsman. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, it is absolutely necessary that the Ombudsman / respondent no. 1 may not be restrained to proceed with the order issues. This writ petition is, therefore, being dismissed at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to challenge, in case occasion so arises, the order of the Ombudsman also on the ground of respondent no. 2 being held to be a Consumer or not. On these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.6.2009 Rathour