O R D E R (ORAL) JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. It is made clear that there is no stay order regarding the bills to be recovered from the petitioner/complainant. The argument advanced by the counsel for the respondent on the last date of hearing is somewhat misleading. 2. Heard counsel for the parties on merits of this case, as well. It may be mentioned here that both the fora below have decided the case against the petitioner/complainant. 3. The case of the petitioner/complainant is this. It is a registered Society running a School in Pocket 3, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi, in the name of ‘Laxman International School’. Its name was subsequently changed to ‘Indian Convent School’. DDA had provided water connection. The School of the petitioner was enjoying the facility of drinking water. It had got one tap only. This is an indisputable fact that the building of the School was also under construction which ended in January, 2006. Water bill dated 04.12.2004 showed the consumption of water as 2KL. The DDA sent a bill dated 04.03.2005 wherein it was mentioned in the bill itself that the petitioner should get the defective meter changed within 20 days, otherwise, double rate of the bill would be charged. 4. Pursuant to that bill, the petitioner moved an application dated 21.03.2005 seeking permission to change the meter. This application was itself an eye wash. Permission was already granted vide bill dated 04.03.2005. However, the meter was got changed though this fact is disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the same water meter continued. However, the report filed by the respondent/OP clearly goes to show that previously it was ‘Janta’ make meter and subsequently, it was changed to ‘Kranti’ make meter. 5. The State Commission was pleased to observe in para 2 of its judgment, which is reproduced here as under :- “The short controversy that now arises in this appeal is whether the meter at the site stood changed or not. The complainant / appellant vide his letter dated 21.03.2005 asked for the permission to change the meter. It was never required. The complainant/ appellant was competent to get the meter changed on his own and permission was not required in this behalf. The test report of the meter of the make ‘Kranti’ is on the record and it remained unchallenged. The officer of the rank of Chief Engineer from the side of the OP/DDA had sworn an affidavit stating that the meter stood replaced and the test report of the meter of the make ‘Kranti’ was a genuine document”. 6. It is thus clear that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Commission. The orders passed by the fora below cannot be faulted. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Since the bill amount has not been recovered, therefore, it appears that the OP is working in cahoots with the petitioner/ complainant Society. | 
