Put up today in National Lok Adalat.

Learned counsel Sh. Nitin Kumar Garg on behalf of the revisionist has appeared through video conferencing, whereas Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate, an associate of Sh. Rajkumar, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 / complainant.  Sh. Rajkumar, Advocate had moved an application dated 31.01.2024 (Paper No. 45), seeking time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 1, but the same was not submitted on record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that opposite party No. 1 / complainant has already paid the entire electricity dues and the case of electricity theft has also been compounded in the competent court as per law, therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Heard.

It is admitted on behalf of opposite party No. 1 that the case regarding theft of electricity has already been decided by the competent court and the outstanding electricity dues have been deposited by opposite party No. 1 with the electricity department.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside.  As the matter pertains to theft of electricity, hence the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction in such type of matters.  The revision petition stands allowed accordingly.

Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

File be consigned to the record room along with copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for perusal, information and necessary action.