SADHAN MUKERJEE Vs. G M CESC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had an electric connection from the respondent, C.E.S.C. Ltd. For the period December, 1995 to March, 1996 one single consolidated bill was prepared and given to the petitioner, which according to him, debarred him from availing of the 'slab' benefits. Correspondence was entered into between the parties and the respondent vide its letter dated 8th November, 1996 admitted error on their part, gave certain marginal reliefs and then requested the petitioner to come or send a representation to settle the account. They also expressed their regrets for this inconvenience caused to the petitioner; amount involved was Rs. 791/-. Not being satisfied with this reply, the petitioner moved the District Forum who after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 9.4.1998, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the bill amount and directing the respondents not to disconnect the electric connection, and referring the bills for the disputed period i.e. from March, 1996-August, 1996 to the Chief Electricity Inspector (C.E.I.) and directing him to submit report within two months of the order and clearly spelling out that the report shall be binding upon both the parties. The report of the C.E.I. could be submitted on 31.3.2000. From this order it appears that the respondent C.E.S.C. disconnected the connection and reconnected it on paying the bill. C.E.I. looked into the bills upto September, 1998 against a limited reference of period between March-September, 1996, directed by the District Forum. Be that as it may, the C.E.I. after hearing both the parties passed the following order :

(3.) Not being satisfied with this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on the ground that the decision of the C.E.I. was binding on the parties, and if there is any grievance, against the order of C.E.I., then petitioner need to seek remedy before proper Forum. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.