Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 21-05-2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 867/2006 – The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. P. Vijayan, by which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, against the order of the District Forum allowing complaint.

3.      Complainant challenged bill raised by opposite party for Rs.4,39,309/-.  Opposite party raised objection that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction and electricity was used for commercial purposes and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and quashed demand raised by opposite party.  Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

4.      Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 1353 days and has mentioned that dealing officer was transferred and due to oversight of new incumbent, necessary steps for filing revision could not be taken.  It was further submitted that as Supreme Court in Anis Ahmad’s case has decided that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with theft of electric energy, this revision petition has been filed, hence delay in filing revision petition be condoned.

5.      Apparently, there is delay of 1353 days in filing revision petition and judgment of Supreme Court cannot be a ground for condonation of extraordinary delay of 1353 days in filing revision petition.   Petitioner has not given name of the officer, who was dealing with the matter, when he was transferred and when new officer joined on that seat and what action was taken against the officers, who have not filed revision petition in time.

6.      As far theft of electricity is concerned, learned State Commission in Para 6 of the impugned order has also mentioned that there was no evidence or substantiating material to make out a prima-facie case regarding theft of electric energy and in such circumstances, there is no justification to condone extraordinary delay of 1353 days in the light of following judgments of Supreme Court:

          (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 – Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.;

(2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.;

(3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,

(4) R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108;

(5) Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361.

7.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.