1) the Ombudsman can require parents as primary appellants, it is legally untenable to force you to remove yourself entirely, especially if you have a material interest or are authorized by a PoA to manage the property.

2) you are a "necessary party" and that your presence is crucial for the effective adjudication of the dispute, particularly as the order was against you 

3)If you are the child of the allottee, you fall within the definition of "apartment owner," and therefore, the "consumer" under the U.P. Apartment Act.

4) Division bench judgment is binding on the Ombudsman 

5) As the manager of the property and user of electricity (via PoA), you have a direct interest and qualify as a consumer/occupier. The insistence on removing you is, therefore, contrary to the broad definition of "consumer." 

6) the Ombudsman passes a final order removing you or dismisses the appeal because you refused to remove yourself, you can file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court.

No he can’t remove in such case

You should make payment under protest if the builder is holding the NOC hostage to force you to make payment 

2) if builder still does not give NOC issue legal notice to builder to give NOC as all dues have been paid 

3) you can file complaint against builder before consumer forum for deficiency in service 

4) you and your parents can be listed as Appellants 

5) Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, acts as a jurisdictional bar, meaning civil courts cannot interfere in matters handled by authorized officers

6) in your written submissions argue that if the dispute is related to unauthorized use/theft (Section 126), the Ombudsman must strictly adhere to statutory provisions and cannot act mechanically.

Dear client

If you haven't notified or shared your prior PSU (Public Sector Unit) job with your new employer and are starting out as a fresher in a public sector unit, there are some potential risks for you. The biggest risk will not become apparent until your background check is complete by your new employer or the new employer reviews your pm records.

Your UAN (Universal Account Number) that is issued by the EPFO (Employees' Provident Fund Organisation) is tracked against your previous public sector employment history. When you join the new employer and contribute to your existing UAN, if you have a prior public sector employer with a UAN with whom you worked and they contributed PF to the same UAN, your new employer will also be able to see any prior employer on that UAN.

Whether your new employer will look closely at PF contribution records or not will depend on their verification process. There are PSUs that complete a thorough verification prior to hiring whereas some PSUs only verify educational credentials and identity.

Because your previous employment with the PSU was training and not permanent, there may be entries (i.e., your employment with the PSU is recorded against you with the EPFO) as permanent employment even if your employment with the PSU was not permanent.

If your new employer discovers your misrepresentation during their background verification, they could penalise you as it relates to your interview or hiring process. The best course of action would be to prepare yourself with a valid and reasonable explanation; specifically, you were employed on a training basis (for a very short period) and were not a permanent employee of the PSU.

Firstly, if the complaint before the consumer forum was dismissed then you can approach for remedy to the state commission and not the Ombudsman.

You are not forbidden to approach Electricity ombudsman, but that will not be  pursuant to the consumer case or seeking relief against the dismissal of the consumer forum complaint. 

Well, since you have already approached the electricity ombudsman and they have recognized your representation as POA on behalf of your father without any objection, then the ombudsman cannot object  your representation, especially when this is a continuation of the lis. But, it is not understood that how come the complaint before the consumer forum and a complaint before the electricity ombudsman is a continuous lis? They both are separate entities. 

The other issues like ownership of apartment and the owner only has to file the complaint is untenable in law. As the POA agent as well as part of the household of the apartment under the society, you have all the rights to represent the case/complaint before the authorities concerned.

The ombudsman is incorrect in directing you to implead your father as an appellant and forcibly removing you, as you rightly observed it is ultra vires and can be challenged by filing a writ petition before high court. 

You can discuss with your lawyer and proceed to file a writ petition before high court seeking direction to ombudsman or to pas the relief directly on the basis of merits in your side.

1. You can make the payment with objection to avoid disconnection of the supply and then look for legal remedies.

2. You can take the assistance of your advocate to draft the proposed memo because it is practical situation.

3. It is not that you cannot find a legal solution at all even if it is barred by the civil court's interference. 

The writ court can come to your rescue provided you present your case properly and convince the high court accordingly about the reliefs sought.

1) Paying disputed electricity amounts under protest is a recognized method to avoid disconnection while the dispute is pending

2) If you pay under protest, you should formally submit the payment receipt, along with a copy of the Builder’s notice and evidence of the pending Civil Court case, to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can direct the "illegal entity" (AOA) to update their software and stop the fraudulent demand, provided they have jurisdiction over the entity.

3) Since the CGRF order was passed against you (likely because you were the acting consumer at the time of the complaint), you should remain the Primary Petitioner, with your parents listed as Co-Petitioners/Appellants. This ensures continuity from the CGRF order to the Ombudsman appeal.

You will be the primary petitioner and you can have parents as co petitioner

If you pay the disputed electricity amount under protest, it does NOT automatically mean the dispute is settled.
Under the regulatory framework governing electricity grievance systems (for example under the rules framed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission), the **Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman normally treat such payments as interim payment or payment without admission of liability.
Courts and electricity authorities routinely recognize “payment under protest” as preserving your right to dispute.
If you write clearly that the payment is:
"paid under protest and subject to outcome of proceedings before the Electricity Ombudsman / Civil Court"
then it  cannot legally be treated as final settlement
you retain the right to recover the amount if you win
the Ombudsman can still adjudicate the dispute.
If the AOA is not elected, did not maintain the records at that time, does not hold the connection then raising recovery for a past period is legally questionable because the creditor must be the person to whom the amount is legally payable.
If the builder himself says payment to AOA will not discharge liability, that strengthens your argument.
You can better pay the amount in court as court deposit so that the amount can be adjusted accordingly after the court verdict.
If the CGRF order named you as the complainant, the safest structure is you will be the Primary Petitioner and your parents will be co-petitioners.
Thus you should be Petitioner No.1 since the CGRF order names you so.

The unauthorized takeover of electricity distribution, including meter tampering and software replacement by an Apartment Owners Association (AOA) for a builder-registered connection, constitutes a violation of Sections 135 and 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Legal options include filing an FIR for theft, petitioning the UPERC for DISCOM (NPCL) inaction, and appealing to the Electricity Ombudsman within 30 days of the CGRF order

Electricity consumer disputes follow this route:

 Complaint before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF)

Appeal to Electricity Ombudsman

Judicial review before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226.

You may please note that the CGRF is not a court but it is an internal consumer grievance body of the distribution licensee created by regulation.

That is why it normally does not decide criminal violations, it avoids questions like illegal takeover, fraud, trespass etc. Those issues fall under criminal law or civil courts or regulatory enforcement. This explains why the forum may avoid Section 135–140 arguments.These offences are prosecuted before Special Courts under the Electricity Act.

However, only the distribution licensee normally initiates such prosecution, or police act on a complaint from the licensee. If the distribution company does not initiate action, CGRF usually cannot compel criminal prosecution. However the legal consumer remains the builder.

Electricity distribution is a licensed activity. A society or AOA can only take over if:l the connection is transferred, or DISCOM approves the arrangement. Otherwise, the builder technically remains the intermediary.

If the AOA has imported billing data for a period before it assumed control, then a legal question arises whether they are the lawful creditor of that amount. This is a civil liability question, not purely an electricity billing issue. That is likely why the CGRF avoided it.

CGRF and Ombudsman may ignore or refuse to entertain the complaints pertaining to society governance disputes or criminal allegations you or builder vs association conflicts because those fall outside their statutory jurisdiction.

If the Ombudsman also refuses to consider these issues, you can approach the Allahabad High Court with a writ petition on specific grounds.

Courts often intervene when regulatory forums ignore core issues raised in the complaint.

To avoid disconnection risk, parties often deposit disputed dues under protest, clearly record that payment does not recognize AOA authority. This prevents arguments of admission later.

Ok

Your case involves multiple overlapping issues under the Electricity Act, 2003, the U.P. electricity grievance regulations, and principles of appellate procedure. From the facts stated, several legal positions are reasonably clear.

First, regarding the direction of the Electricity Ombudsman to remove you as a party and allow you to act only as a Power of Attorney holder. Ordinarily, the person against whom the impugned order has been passed is the aggrieved party and therefore has the right to maintain the appeal. Since the CGRF order was passed in your name as the complainant, you prima facie have the right to continue as an appellant. Addition of your parents as co-appellants does not automatically require deletion of the original complainant. In appellate procedure, an appeal is a continuation of the same proceedings and the aggrieved party ordinarily remains a party to the appeal. Therefore, legally it is permissible for all three of you (you and your parents) to remain appellants in the memo of parties.

Second, regarding the interpretation of “apartment owner” under the U.P. Apartment Act and the judgment you have cited. A Division Bench judgment of the High Court is binding on subordinate authorities and tribunals operating within that jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman may still insist that the registered allottee be treated as the primary party for procedural purposes, particularly where ownership records stand in the parents’ names. This does not necessarily extinguish your right to represent them under the power of attorney or to be added as a co-appellant if you are directly affected by the order.

Third, regarding your status as a “consumer”. Under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, a consumer includes any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use. Courts have recognized that even occupants or users of electricity can qualify as consumers in certain contexts. Therefore, your argument that consumer status does not strictly depend on ownership has legal support, although regulatory forums sometimes insist on the name appearing in the electricity account.

Fourth, regarding the disputed electricity dues. If payment is made under protest, it generally does not amount to an admission of liability. Courts and regulatory forums routinely accept such payments while allowing the dispute to continue. However, payment should be clearly recorded as “under protest and without prejudice to rights in pending proceedings.” If the builder or the entity controlling the meter still refuses to restore the service or remove the disputed entries after such payment, that conduct itself can strengthen your case before the Ombudsman or in writ proceedings.

Fifth, regarding the alleged unauthorized takeover of electricity distribution by the Apartment Owners Association. If the single-point electricity connection legally remains in the name of the builder and the association is operating the system without authorization from the distribution licensee, that issue falls within regulatory jurisdiction under the Electricity Act. Evidence of such unauthorized operation, including communications from the builder and complaints made to the distribution company, can be relevant material in your case.

Finally, regarding remedies. If the Ombudsman proceeds in a manner that appears arbitrary, ignores binding precedent, or denies you standing despite being the complainant in the original order, the appropriate remedy would be to challenge the Ombudsman’s direction through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the jurisdictional High Court. High Courts frequently exercise supervisory jurisdiction over electricity regulatory bodies where procedural fairness or jurisdictional issues arise.

In summary, it is legally possible for you and your parents to remain appellants together, payments may be made under protest without waiving rights, and if the Ombudsman continues to insist on removing you or fails to consider the jurisdictional issues raised, the matter can be challenged through writ jurisdiction before the High Court.

Dear client,

You are an aggrieved party because CGRF has made an order against you and in the usual course of events, you have the right to seek to appeal that order. You were the complainant in front of the CGRF therefore your presence in any appeal cannot easily be discarded, even though the flat is legally held by your parents, as the registered owners. The Ombudsman may wish for your parents to be the appellants and for you to be shown as acting on behalf of them, using a power of attorney but the Ombudsman could be challenged legally if the interpretation of the CGRF’s orders allowed for you to be entirely removed from the process once the CGRF orders were made.

The Designarch decision gives an extended interpretation of what constitutes an apartment owner and therefore the Ombudsman may also take a separate view of who has an interest in your electricity accounts as pertains to the electricity regulations and who具有 standing in those proceedings.

For the disputed electricity amount, if you choose to pay it, likely a good option is to pay under protest and then have in writing that the payment does not mean you agree to the liability. The payment should ideally be made to the builder or the recognised electricity provider and not to an entity where the authority of the entity is in dispute.

Your parents could be identified as the Appellants in the appeal memo and you would identify yourself as a POA holder or a co-Appellant.

If you have any query please feel free to contact us

Your matter involves three distinct issues: (1) payment of disputed electricity dues, (2) party structure in the Ombudsman appeal, and (3) remedies if the Ombudsman proceeds mechanically or without proper application of mind.

1. Whether you should pay the disputed electricity amount

In electricity disputes, courts and regulatory forums generally follow the principle that payment under protest does not amount to admission of liability. Therefore, if payment is made with a clear written protest, it usually does not prejudice the payer’s legal rights.

However, the practical issue here is to whom the payment should legally be made.

From the facts you have described:

• The single-point electricity connection still stands in the name of the Builder.
• The AOA allegedly does not hold the connection with the DISCOM.
• The dispute regarding earlier dues is already pending before a civil court.

Under the Electricity Act, 2003, electricity supply and billing must normally originate from the licensed distribution entity or the consumer holding the sanctioned connection.

If the builder continues to hold the sanctioned load with the DISCOM, then legally:

• the builder remains the consumer vis-à-vis the DISCOM, and
• internal recovery from flat owners depends on contractual arrangements or society structure.

If the builder has already issued communication stating that payment to the AOA will not discharge earlier liability, then payment to that entity may not protect you from future claims.

In such situations, litigants often adopt one of the following approaches:

• deposit the disputed amount under protest, clearly recording that liability is disputed, or
• request the adjudicating forum to direct where the payment should be deposited, or
• seek permission to deposit the amount with the authority pending adjudication.

If any payment is made, it should clearly state:

“Payment made under protest and without prejudice to legal rights.”

2. Structure of parties in the Ombudsman appeal

Procedurally, an appeal is normally filed by the person aggrieved by the impugned order.

You mentioned that:

• the CGRF order was passed in your name, and
• your parents were later added in the appeal.

It is legally permissible for multiple appellants to appear jointly in an appeal. Courts and quasi-judicial bodies often allow this where more than one person has an interest in the subject matter.

However, electricity regulatory forums generally focus on the registered consumer of electricity. If the electricity connection is recorded in your parents’ names, the Ombudsman may prefer that:

• the registered consumers remain the principal appellants, and
• you act through the Power of Attorney.

A practical way to structure the Memo of Parties is:

• Parent 1 – Appellant No. 1 (Registered consumer / allottee)
• Parent 2 – Appellant No. 2 (Co-allottee / consumer)
• You – Appellant No. 3 and authorised representative / POA holder

There is no strict legal requirement to designate a “primary appellant.” What matters is that all persons having an interest are properly on record.

3. Whether the Ombudsman can insist that you act only as POA holder

Quasi-judicial authorities often regulate the procedural form of representation before them. If the electricity connection is not in your name, the Ombudsman may insist that the registered consumer remain the formal appellant.

Your argument that the CGRF passed the order against you personally does create a procedural point that you remain an aggrieved party, but forums sometimes regularize the record by placing the registered consumer at the forefront.

4. Section 145 of the Electricity Act

Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters assigned to authorities under the Act.

Its primary purpose is to prevent ordinary civil courts from interfering in matters that must be decided by:

• electricity authorities,
• assessing officers,
• CGRF or similar statutory bodies.

Section 145 generally does not restrict the Ombudsman’s procedural authority, nor does it affect the jurisdiction of High Courts under constitutional remedies.

5. Remedy if the Ombudsman proceeds without proper application of mind

If the Ombudsman:

• refuses to consider material jurisdictional issues,
• ignores statutory provisions, or
• passes an order that is arbitrary or procedurally irregular,

the remedy is usually to challenge that order by filing a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

High Courts regularly review decisions of electricity regulatory forums where:

• jurisdiction is wrongly assumed or denied,
• principles of natural justice are violated, or
• relevant statutory provisions are ignored.

6. Practical litigation strategy

In complex regulatory disputes such as this, litigants usually focus on maintaining procedural stability:

• ensure that the registered consumers are shown as appellants,
• continue to act through Power of Attorney for litigation management,
• record any payments clearly under protest, and
• focus arguments on statutory jurisdiction under the electricity regulatory framework.

If the Ombudsman ultimately fails to address the substantive issues, the matter can be carried to the High Court through a writ petition.

First, on the issue of your locus and removal from the appeal, the direction of the Electricity Ombudsman to remove you completely as a party appears legally questionable. The complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) was admittedly filed and decided in your name, and the final order also records you as the complainant. Under the scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the grievance regulations framed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, an appeal before the Ombudsman is essentially a continuation of the same dispute. Therefore, the person against whom the impugned order operates normally has the right to appeal. Directing removal of such a person altogether may be difficult to sustain because it deprives the aggrieved party of the statutory appellate remedy.

Second, the Ombudsman’s insistence that you function only as a Power of Attorney holder rather than as a party may also conflict with the broad definition of a “consumer” under the Act. Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines a consumer as any person supplied with electricity for his own use, which courts have interpreted broadly to include persons who actually use or manage the supply, even if the formal connection stands in another’s name. Since you manage the premises and electricity account under a valid power of attorney from your parents, there is a strong argument that you independently qualify as a “consumer” with sufficient interest to maintain proceedings.

Third, your reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority is legally relevant. In that case the Allahabad High Court interpreted the definition of “apartment owner” under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 broadly enough to recognize rights of family members such as children of the allottee in relation to apartment ownership. While the Ombudsman operates under regulatory powers and not the apartment statute directly, subordinate authorities are ordinarily bound by binding High Court precedents within the same territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot disregard the legal interpretation laid down by the High Court if it is directly relevant to the status of apartment ownership or rights flowing from it.

Fourth, on the issue of electricity dues and payment under protest, caution is advisable. If the electricity connection is still in the builder’s name and the AOA has taken over billing or recharge systems without legal authority, paying the disputed amount to such an entity may not extinguish the underlying liability and may create complications later. A safer course, where payment becomes unavoidable for restoration of supply, is to make payment clearly “under protest” and preferably to the lawful billing entity such as the builder or the distribution company, while simultaneously recording in writing that the payment does not amount to admission of liability. However, if the dispute about the dues is already pending before a civil court, strategic legal advice from counsel familiar with the record would be necessary before making any payment.

Fifth, regarding the memo of parties in the appeal, there is generally no strict requirement that there must be only one “primary” petitioner. Appeals often show multiple appellants jointly, especially where rights arise from the same transaction or property. In your case, it is possible to structure the appeal with all three persons (you and both parents) as co-appellants, mentioning that you also act as their constituted attorney. This preserves both your independent interest (as original complainant) and their status as owners of the flat.

Sixth, concerning the argument based on jurisdiction and Section 145, that provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters that fall within the powers of authorities under the Act. However, it does not bar proceedings before statutory forums such as the CGRF or the Ombudsman themselves; rather, it prevents ordinary civil courts from interfering in matters reserved for electricity authorities. If you believe the Ombudsman is ignoring material issues such as illegal takeover of the builder’s single-point supply, those facts should be placed on record through a written submission or additional affidavit highlighting the statutory violations.

Finally, if the Ombudsman persists with directions that effectively prevent you from prosecuting the appeal or fails to consider relevant statutory provisions, the constitutional remedy remains available. You may approach the Allahabad High Court in a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Ombudsman’s order on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and disregard of binding precedent. The High Court has wide supervisory powers over statutory authorities and can set aside directions that are ultra vires the governing regulations or that deprive an aggrieved party of the right to pursue a statutory remedy.

I am only answering the primary question and have not read the follow ups

the impugned order was passed in the name of the POA holder. Thus, in effect the order was in the name of the grantors of that POA. 

So the Ombudsman is correct

the DB ruling you are relying on is in a different context 

in the memo of parties your parents should be shown as appellants and you can represent them as their POA holder

your name is not required to be there in the memo of parties

no case is made out for filing any writ petition 

not here for your ratings Mr!