This Execution Revision Petition is directed against order dated 30.08.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1121 of 2007.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order dated 01.06.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (for short “the District Forum”) in Execution Application No. 28 of 2004.  By the said order, the District Forum had directed the Punjab State Electricity Board to transfer tubewell connection to the complainant, petitioner herein, from an urban feeder, which may be used for agricultural purposes, without charging any further amount as shifting charges over and above a sum of Rs.5000/-, already deposited by the complainant as shifting charges. 

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the complainant/petitioner is that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as in execution proceedings the State Commission could examine de-novo the entire issue of shifting of tubewell connection.  According to the learned counsel the issue stood settled when vide order dated 17.02.2003 in Complaint No. 142 of 2002 the District Forum directed the Electricity Board to shift the tubewell connection to the place applied for by the complainant on their intimating the complainant the amount required to be deposited for the said purpose within 15 days from the date of the said order. 

          A bare reading of the said order makes it clear that an understanding had been arrived at between the counsel for the complainant and the Electricity Board to the effect that the tubewell connection will be shifted to the place as applied for by the complainant within three months, provided the complainant deposits the requisite fee and complied with other formalities.  It is manifest clear from Circular No. 34 of 1998 dated 03.11.1998 that for shifting of tubewell connection a consumer is required to pay entire cost of dismantling, old service line, erection of service line etc., including augmentation/installation of new transfer at the new site.  Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that how in the light of the said circular the complainant could not be asked to pay any other amount in addition to the amount of Rs.5000/- already deposited by her.  In our view, the mere fact that Electricity Board failed to intimate the actual amount which was required to be deposited by the complainant/petitioner within 15 days of order dated 17.02.2003, the complainant/petitioner was not absolved from depositing the requisite transfer charges, particularly in light of the said circular, which is not the subject matter of challenge.    

In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting our interference.  We do not find any merit in this Execution Revision Petition and it is dismissed accordingly.