RAM CHANDER Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER OP DHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.2001 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order of District Forum, Rewari dated 14.3.2001 and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/complainant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. The petitioner approached the respondent for release of electric connection for a tubewell under 'Tatkal Scheme' However, the respondent declined to accept deposit of Rs. 20,000/- and to release the electric connection. In the complaint, direction was sought to the respondent to release electric connection for a tubewell under the said Scheme in addition to claiming compensation. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version wherein it was stated that during the course of checking of petitioner's tubewell by Anupam Katiyar, SDO on 1.2.2000, the petitioner was found indulging in theft of energy through direct supply to the tubewell from the transformer. Thus, a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on the petitioner in addition to lodging FIR and issuing notice on 2.2.2000. Said amount of penalty still remains to be realised from the petitioner. Observing that theft of energy and imposition of penalty are distinct aspects, the District Forum in terms of aforesaid order directed the respondent to provide electric connection after 15 days of the deposite of Rs. 20,000/- which amount was not to be adjusted towards the amount of penalty imposed. In terms of said order dated 5.10.2001, the State Commission reversed the order of District Forum holding that electric connection cannot be released to the petitioner in the same premises as he was found committing theft of energy and he also cannot be regarded as consumer of the respondent.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Sunil Goel for petitioner was that on the basis of mere lodging of FIR, it cannot be said that theft of energy was actually committed by the petitioner and State Commission, thus, ought not to have reversed the order of District Forum. Alleged stealing of energy by the petitioner was taken note of only as a factor prima facie, disentitling him to the release of electricity for tubewell under the said Scheme and the guilt of petitioner in that behalf has to be gone into by a Magistrate on charge-sheet being filed against him. In our view, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.