The facts of the case are that the agricultural connection of Shri Dharma who is the Respondent in this revision petition and the original complainant before the District Forum, was disconnected on 08.07.2004 and the burnt meter and line was removed by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Petitioners in this case, due to non-payment of dues. According to the Petitioners, although the Respondent had consumed electricity, he failed to pay any amount from January, 2003 to July, 2004 and in respect of the bill of January, 2003, he had made only a part payment of Rs.3,500/- against the bill of Rs.6853.36p. As on 26.05.2004, therefore, the outstanding amount against Respondent was Rs.12,885.68p which despite disconnection he did not pay. Upto September, 2004, the amount payable by him because Rs.14,981.82p which he failed to pay. Following disconnection of his electricity on these grounds, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the amount claimed from him by the Petitioners. The District Forum after hearing the parties reduced the amount of Rs.14,981.82p to Rs.9,853.38p for which revised bill was issued in May, 2007. On 17.04.2007, Petitioner brought out an Amnesty Scheme whereby certain benefits were allowed which entailed defaulting consumers to obtain certain benefits to them if they had cleared the outstanding by a stipulated date. The same was applicable irrespective of whether consumer wanted reconnection or not. As per Condition 8 of the Scheme the disconnected agricultural connection would be reconnected in accordance with the prevailing agricultural policy and as per Condition 24 of the then prevailing Agricultural Policy in cases where the disconnection is for more than two years old and the line has been removed, the same can be reconnected on payment of outstanding amount with interest plus reconnection charges of Rs.1500/- per HP upto 10 HP and thereafter Rs.750 per HP. The Respondent availed of the concessions under the Amnesty Scheme and paid the outstanding amount under the Scheme which was further reduced to Rs.6,913/- which he paid on 30.06.2007. The Respondent thereafter requested for reconnection for which the Petitioners issued a demand note of Rs.8,950/- being Rs.1500/- per HP charges for 5 HP totaling to Rs.7500/-, Rs.850/- towards security deposit plus other expenses on 09.08.2007 as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme and Condition 24 of the prevailing Agricultural Policy cited above. The Respondent did not pay this amount and instead filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioners may be directed to restore his electricity connection since he had cleared the bills issued by the Petitioners. The District Forum after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme was limited only for the old outstanding dues and demand note of Rs.8,950/- which was sent to the Respondent after deposit of the outstanding amounts as per the Scheme, was not illegal regarding reconnection charges. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which accepted the appeal on the grounds that raising a demand for Rs.8,950/- by the Petitioners was unwarranted because the complainant had deposited outstanding amount after obtaining the required concession under the Amnesty Scheme on 30.06.2007 and on this basis alone the opposite parties should have restored the electricity connection of the Respondent. The State Commission, therefore, quashed the demand raised by the Petitioners and directed them to restore the complainant’s connection and pay Rs.10,000/- as costs as well as compensation. Aggrieved by this, Petitioners have come in revision before us. Learned counsel for both parties were present. Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that the Amnesty Scheme could be availed of by consumers subject to the specific terms and conditions of the Scheme. Condition 8 of the said Scheme reads as under: “The disconnected agricultural connections shall be reconnected in accordance with the prevailing agricultural policy.” Further, Condition 24 of the Agricultural Policy reads as follows: “In case any disconnection is more than two years old and the line has been removed the same can be reconnected on payment of outstanding amount with interest @ 16% six-monthly compounded plus reconnection charges and additional charges of Rs.1500/- per HP upto 10 HP and thereafter Rs.750/- per HP.” According to the counsel for Petitioners, the case of the Respondent was covered under these provisions and, therefore, he was required to pay for reconnection once they had agreed to accept the Amnesty Scheme. We have heard learned counsel and have gone through the evidence on record. We agree that as per the terms and conditions of the Amnesty Scheme read in conjunction with the Agricultural Policy, the Respondent is required to pay the reconnection charges. The State Commission erred in not appreciated this fact. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. The Revision Petition is accepted with no order as to costs. | 
