Delay of 7 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Petitioner imposed a penalty of Rs.1,20,931/- on the respondent for shifting the tubewell from Killa No.99/1 to Killa No.94/23.  Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the petitioner had imposed the penalty at the instance of one Sat Parkash, with whom he had enemity.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  State Commission, in its order, has recorded a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove on record that initially the tubewell connection was installed in Killa No.99/1, in the absence of which, shifting of the tubewell by the complainant was not proved.

          Counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert the finding recorded by the State Commission that there is no evidence to show that initially the tubewell had been installed in Killa No.99/1.

          I agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  In the absence of such evidence, it is not proved that the respondent was guilty of shifting the tubewell without taking permission from the petitioner.  Finding recorded is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.