Electricity connection bearing account No.MS-51 installed in the premises of the complainant/petitioner was checked by the officials of the respondents on 2.3.2001. During the checking, it was noticed that the complainant had been using 80.080 KW load against the sanctioned load of 54.900 KW. Treating it to be a case of abstraction of energy dishonestly, the respondents billed the petitioner for a sum of Rs.85,240/- on account of excess load by overhauling his account. Petitioner deposited the said amount under protest and filed the complaint before the District Forum. - 2 - District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till its payment with costs, which was quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. However, it was held that the respondent could charge the amount for the excess load by overhauling the account of the consumer for the last 6 months only. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Sales Circular No.D-40/2001, contends that the respondent could charge the penalty for excess unauthorized load for one month only. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Sales Circular No.D-40/2001 came into force with effect from 1.5.2001 and the same was prospective in operation and, therefore, would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as the meter was inspected on 2.3.2001, i.e., prior to the issuance of the Sales Circular No.D-40/2001; - 3 - that in the case of the petitioner, Sales Circular bearing No.D-18/2001 would be applicable, according to which, the respondent could charge for the excess load at the rate of Rs.70 per KW per month for the preceding 6 months and onwards till complete papers along with advance consumption deposit are submitted for regularizing such extension in connected load. We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the respondent. Sales Circular No.D-40/2001 relied upon by the petitioner came into force with effect from 1.5.2001. The same is not retrospective in operation. In the case of the petitioner, the Sales Circular No.D-18/2001 would be applicable as the premises of the petitioner had been checked by the Vigilance team on 2.3.2001. At the relevant time, Circular No.D-18/2001 was in force and the petitioner would be covered by the same. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the revision petition. Dismissed. | 
