SHYAMALI CHAKRABORTY Vs. WBSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 5. 2. 2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula allowing appeal against the order dated 19. 1. 2004 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

(2.) PETITIONER/complainant had applied for tubewell connection by submitting an application on 25. 11. 1992. He also deposited Rs. 220 vide receipt No. 4. Petitioner received a letter dated 13. 11. 2002 from the opposite party/respondent asking for deposit of the amount of Rs. 20,000 towards non-refundable money, Rs. 50 as CEI and Rs. 1,000 as meter security. Another letter dated 25. 2. 2003 was received by the petitioner calling upon to deposit the said amount failing which his application for tubewell connection was to be rejected. Said demand of Rs. 20,000 was challenged by filing complaint which was contested by the respondent on the ground that petitioner had deposited Rs. 220 along with the application and thereafter he failed to comply with the demand made through the letter dated 5. 11. 2001. He further failed to fulfil the conditions of Sales Circular Nos. 28/2002, 77/2001 and 87/2001 and complaint was, thus, liable to be dismissed being without any merit.

(3.) THE District Forum had accepted the complaint on the ground that the said sale circulars could not be applied retrospectively. It was contended by the petitioner whom we have heard on admission, that he could not be asked to deposit Rs. 20,000 as non-refundable money based on the sales circular as he had deposited Rs. 220 at the time of making application on 25. 11. 1992. State Commission was of the view that petitioner is liable to pay the said amount demanded as at no stage the respondent had issued any demand notice prior to the notice bearing No. 515 dated 13. 11. 2002 nor was it the case of petitioner that test report was submitted by him. We are of the view that respondent-Nigam was fully justified in issuing demand for the said amount of Rs. 20,000 as at no stage it had issued any demand notice prior to said notice bearing No. 515 dated 13. 11. 2002 nor was it the case of the petitioner that he had submitted test report as held by the State Commission. Order of the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.