Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 3161 of 2002. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the order dated 2.5.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad. By the said order, the District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant in the following manner:- “To satisfy the ground of the complainant following order is passed:- 1.The respondent is ordered to adjust the amount in the future bills of the complainant which the complainant has deposited against the impugned penalty. 2.The impugned penalty imposed by the respondents on the complaint is hereby declared, null, void and invalid. However, no cost is imposed upon the respondents in the peculiar circumstances of the case . -3- The State Commission has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of District Consumer Forum by giving cogent reason why the order passed by the District Consumer Forum could not be upheld. We have heard Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He seeks to assail the impugned order as also the reports of inspection carried out by the functionaries of the Nigam on 3.12.1998 and thereafter on 8.3.2001 when it was found that the complainant had connected excessive load to the extent of 99.552 K.W. as against the sanctioned load of 12.960 K.W. and later 87.054 K.W. as against the sanctioned load of 17.918 K.W. On account of the unauthorized extraction of electricity to the above extent, penalties were levied on the complainant-petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It was also brought on record that not only the complainant was extracting the electricity unauthorisedly for the use of her own industrial unit, namely, M/s K. B. Industries but she had allowed such unauthorized use for the unit of another person, namely, M/s Guru Nanak Industries. These facts would show that the -4- complainant cannot be said to be a bona fide consumer who is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a consumer fora due to her own illegal unauthorized acts. The order passed by the State Commission is justified on the basis of material available on record and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which calls for any interference by this Commission under revisonal jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
