O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner is a consumer of the first opposite party. The electrical connection of the petitioner is a domestic connection.The petitioner is regularly paying the electricity bill under tariff is I a. On 5..3..2006 an officer attached to the second opposite party came to the residence of the petitionerand issued a bill with different tariff alleging that the petitioner had contravend section 44(d) of Indian Electricity Act and section 42 (c), & 42(d) of condition of supply of Electrical energy. The 1st opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for Rs. 4304/- in tariff VII A. According to the opposite party, petitioner is using the building as ahostel. The petitioner states that he is residing along with his family and any point of time he never used his house as a hostel. So the petitioner prays for cancellation the bill dated 5..8..2006 and also he prays for a declaration that he is liable to pay tariff at the rate of I a for his connection and he claims cost of proceedings. <br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version. The opposite party <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> stated that the service connection to the petitioner was given for domestic purpose only. But he is misusing the same for running ostel along with domestic use. The upstair of residential building, belonging to the petitioner, is arranged as a hostel with 7 bed capacity and the petitioner is mis using the energy for his personal benefits. Hostel facility is provided for the students of the entrance coaching centre. The tariff in force for private hostel is LT VII A as per the notification so the entire consumption as reassessed under LT VII A tariff. According to the opposite party action taken by the opposite party is as per rules and bill issued is legal. So, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit of the petitioner Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner. Opposite parties evidence consists of affidavit filed by him and Ext. B1 to B4 documents.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The material question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is using electricity in tariff 1 (a) for domestic purpose or in the tariff of LT VII A as a private hostel. According to the petitioner the connection is for domestic purpose and he is not using his building as a hostel. The opposite party on other hand contented that the officials of the opposite party on 16..8..2006 and 2..11..2006 inspected the building and prepared Mahazar. The said Mahazars were marked as Ext. B2 and Ext. B3. In Ext. B3 <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> petitioner had signed as a witness. In Ext. B2 Mahazar it is stated that in the upstairs of the building there were 7 beds, dining table etc. In Ext. B3 it is stated that at the time of inspection 5 students studying at Brilliant study centre were seen. So, according to the opposite party the petitioner is conducting a private hostel there. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to disprove Ext. B2 & B3. We are also of the opinion that there was nothing to disbelieve the officials of opposite party who prepared the mahazar. As per Government order dated 24..10..2002 with regard to revised. Electricity Tariff. The private hostels will come under LT VII A Tariff. The petitioner produced the bill issued to him by the opposite party dated 5..8..2006 said bill is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 it is shown that the bill is issued as per change in Tariff from I a to VII A. The petitioners counsel at the time of hearing has argued that even if it is found that it is hostel LT VII A Tariff is not applicable LT VI B is applicable to the petitioner but LT VI B is applicable to offices and institution affiliated to university. So, the said argument of the opposite party is not sustainable. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of the Ext. A1 is legal and no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1 , petition is to be dismissed. No cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me, transcribed the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of April, 2008