Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, served a notice dated 7.2.1997 on the respondent/complainant directing it to pay Rs.20,012/- as arrears of water bills pertaining  to the period from November 1984 to February 1992.  Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum quashed the bill and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.500/- by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. 

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing thus :

“In the instant case, it is not disputed that complainant had not consumed water after February 1992 because they got bored tubewell in their complex.  In this case, appellant admits that amount had been lying outstanding against the complainant since November 1984, therefore, sending notice to the complainant on dated 7.2.1997 for so much old amount of arrears is undoubtedly a mistake in itself, consequent upon which the conclusion established by the lower forum, cannot be interfered as arbitrary and established without static mind and there exists no any ground before us for interference in it.  Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.”

          We find no infirmity in the impugned order.  The demand for the outstanding bills raised by the petitioner after 13 years was certainly unjustified.  We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The bill was raised by the petitioner in the year 1997 for the period from November 1984 to February 1992.  The petitioner has not given any reasons as to why the bills were not raised soon after consumption of the water.  It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been raising the bills on the respondent and the respondent failed to pay the same.  Dismissed.