SDO Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 548 of 2012 SDO "OP" Sub Division No. 3, UHBVNL, Rohtak Vs. Satish Kumar by which, learned State Commission while dismissing appeal, upheld order of the District Forum allowing complaint partly.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was using electricity connection bearing A/c. No. MK678 since 2.11.2006 and paying electricity bill regularly. Petitioner/OP in the month of April, 2008, raised demand of Rs.1,40,075/- in respect of the above said connection and complainant challenged the legality of the aforesaid demand before the District Forum. OP contested the complaint and justified demand of development charges in view of the instructions and policy of the Nigam. It was further alleged that the area of complainant's plot was 5445 sq. yards and, therefore, as per Circular No. 21/2000, complainant was liable to pay the aforesaid development charges and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to re-assess development charges at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. yard on 906 sq. yard, plot area of the complainant plus Rs.5,000/- for commercial loss. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Along with revision petition, the petitioner has moved application for condonation of delay of 96 days.