ORAL JUDGMENT

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

        We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.          There is delay of 33 days in filing of the present revision petition.  Having regard to the reasons stated in the application, it appears to us that the appeal is properly explained.  The petitioner was not to gain anything by committing the delay. The delay appears to be unintentional and seems to have been caused on account of the official difficulties, as stated in the application.  We, therefore, accept the explanation and condone the delay. 

3.      We have also heard the counsel on merits for admission of the petition. We are inclined to dispose of the petition at the stage of admission in view of narrow compass of the controversy.  The admitted fact is that electricity supply was made available to the Respondent on 09-04-2001 as per the terms of agreement between the parties.  The supply was disconnected on 31-10-2001 on account of non-payment of electricity bills.  There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent (consumer) applied for restoration of electric supply.  The electric supply was restored on 01-03-2002 after accepting the necessary charges for re-connection, penalty, etc.   It  was thereafter that by notice dated 22-12-2003, which was sequel to raising of audit objection, that a bill for 50% minimum electricity charges for the period during which the electric supply was unavailable or unutilised due to disconnection, was sent to the Respondent.  The consumer thereafter filed a complaint alleging that such excess amount for the electricity, which was never consumed, could not have been demanded from him. The complaint was allowed.  The appeal preferred by the present petitioner vide appeal no. 1586/2004 came to be dismissed.

            We may notice that there were concurrent findings of fact rendered by the two Foras below.  In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it is difficult to disturb such concurrent findings of fact unless there is patent error committed by the Foras below while applying the legal principles or there is perversity in appreciation of the evidence.  We may take note of the fact that the petitioner was required to reconnect the electricity supply in accordance with the relevant circulars after obtaining No Due Certificate from RSEB.  The same was required to be done on payment of re disconnection charges along with 18% simple interest on the dues, etc. found payable till making all the payment.  In other words the disconnection was caused after period of three months from the date of initial supply and therefore, Bill of minimum charges could not be levied as per Term 3(b) of the agreement, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner.  So also, perusal of the relevant terms and conditions for supply of Electricity – 2004 also do not specifically show that recovery of the minimum charges during the period of non-consumption of the electricity after initial period of three months could be effected.  What appears from the record is that it was only because of audit objection that such notice was issued in order to comply with the audit objection and notwithstanding the fact that there was no such substance found in the demand of the petitioner itself.  We, therefore, find no force in the petition.  It is, therefore, dismissed.  No cost.