These revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order, as the facts and the law point involved in both of them is the same. Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.3240/2011. This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 100 days along with the application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 100 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Respondent applied for an agriculture connection. Officer of the petitioner, instead of giving the connection from agriculture feeder, gave the connection from PHED feeder. Later, on the basis of a vigilance report, the petitioner raised a demand of Rs.1,22,042/- and Rs.1,17,606/- from the respondents/complainants in RPs No.3240 and 3241/2011 respectively on the ground that the respondents had been taking the supply of electricity from PHED feeder. Respondents filed the complaint alleging that he was regularly paying the bills in respect of the electricity connection and sought quashing of the demand raised along with compensation and cost of litigation. District Forum came to the conclusion that the fault lay with the petitioner in giving a connection from PHED feeder instead of agriculture feeder. That the respondents had applied for an agriculture connection and the petitioner, instead of giving a connection from the agriculture feeder, gave a connection from PHED feeder. That the respondents may not have been aware of the fact that they had been given a connection from PHED feeder. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Respondent had applied for an agriculture connection. Petitioner, instead of giving the connection from agriculture feeder, gave the connection from PHED feeder. Respondents would not know as to from which feeder the connection was given to them. Fault lay with the petitioner in giving the connection from PHED feeder instead of agriculture feeder. There was no fault of the respondents. Petitioner cannot take advantage of its own wrong and recover the amount from the respondents. Dismissed. | 
