Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 2878 of 2007. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 2.8.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa, thereby allowing the complaint and giving following directions to the opposite party-Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.:- On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted following relief:- “…..Therefore, keeping in view the foregoing reasons we quash the checking report dated 12.8.2006 and memo No. 2712 dated 14.8.2006 for the recovery of Rs.62149/-. We further direct the OPs to delete the amount of penalty from the account of complainant and after deducting the amount of penalty from the account of the complainant issued a fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption. We further direct the OPs to restore the electric connection of the complainant disconnected by the officials of the OPs on the alleged date of checking. We further direct the OPs to implement the present order within a period of one month, failing which the complainant shall be -3- entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Forum Act, 1986. the aforesaid relief granted by us is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hence the demand of compensation and litigation expenses is declined. We order accordingly.” The appeal was filed after a delay of 43 days but on the application moved by the petitioner-appellant, delay was condoned and the appeal was answered on merits thereby setting aside the said order of the District Consumer Forum and dismissing the complaint. The main reason for setting aside the order of District Forum was that the District Consumer Forum had erred in not correctly appreciating the evidence and material brought on record in regard to the tempering of the meter which was noticed by the Assistant Director, Vigilance, Hisar, himself at the time of inspection of the meter. The State Commission has given cogent reason why the finding of the District Consumer Forum could not be affirmed. The present petition has been filed after undue delay of 175 days and an application for condonation of delay has been made setting out certain reasons. Even if we take very lenient view in the matter and take the grounds on their face value, the same does not disclose sufficient cause to condone the delay of 175 days. Therefore, we are -4- not inclined to condone the delay. Even then we have considered the merits of the matter and we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
