The present revision petition has been filed by the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as etitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh(hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission in Appeal No. 1988/1999 in favour of Shastrinagar Kanchghar Sudhar Shabha (hereinafter referred to as espondents. The brief facts of the case according to the Respondents who were original complainants before the District Forum were that they were aggrieved because of a 11 K.V. high voltage electric line which passed over a number of houses in the Shastri Nagar Colony of which they are residents since there was constant danger of electrocution to them. Several requests had been made to the Petitioner through its functionaries for shifting the line but the Petitioners vide letter dated 17.06.1998 asked the Respondents to deposit Rs. 58,195/- to remove the high tension line. According to the respondents this was an unreasonable request because it is the duty of a welfare state to ensure the life and safety of its citizens and the high tension electricity wire posed serious threat to their lives. Aggrieved by the negative attitude of the Petitioners, Respondents filed a complaint with the District Forum requesting that the petitioners be directed to shift the high voltage electricity line of 11 K.V. without demanding any charge for the same with costs as considered appropriate. The petitioners denied the above contentions and stated that the 11 K.V. high voltage line was installed in 1982 and at that time the present colony did not exist and there was only agricultural land. Further the 11 K.V. high voltage electricity line passed over the house of only one Dharamvir Goel who had purchased/constructed his house when the electricity line was already in existence. In fact it is Shri Dharamvir Goel who has made this representation for removal of the electricity line and he had not objected to construction of this high voltage electricity line at the time of its installation. As such there is no deficiency in service and as per the relevant Rules, Petitioners were justified in seeking costs for removal of the said line. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to shift the high voltage electric line immediately without demanding any charges within a period of two months from the receipt of the order. Parties were left to bear their costs. Aggrieved by this order Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which vide its order dated 24.12.1999 dismissed the appeal. Petitioner thereafter filed a Revision Petition before this Commission which vide its order dated 09.08.2005 accepted the revision and set aside the order of the State Commission dated 24.12.1999 and remanded the case to the State Commission for deciding it afresh on merits by considering the contentions of the petitioner that the line was erected some time in 1982 for supply of electricity to the microwave station situated across the colony and that the houses of Dharamvir Goel and others were constructed thereafter. The State Commission after hearing the appeal on remand again dismissed the appeal. According to the State Commission there is adequate evidence on record that the colony was in existence prior to the installation of the high voltage line since it was approved by the Town Planning/Building Scheme A-2 at the instance of Governor, Haryana in 1965. The municipal committee Ambala city notified the scheme in 1967. Further copy of a sale deed dated 10.04.1967 shows that the plot had been purchased by the son of Dharamvir Goel in 1965 and a copy of the site plan etc. were also produced as evidence. Similarly, another resident of Shastri Nagar Colony Smt. Kaushlaya Devi had got her site plan sanctionedfrom the Municipal Committee on 24.03.1969 for constructing the house. A number of other houses had also come up in this colony well before 1982 whereas the 11 K.V. high tension line was constructed only in the year 1982 as admitted by the Petitioners i.e. after the construction of the houses in the colony. The State Commission also appointed a retired District & Sessions Judge as Local Commissioner to find out the number of houses over which the high electric tension line passed and at what distance the line is situated from the houses and when approximately these houses were constructed in Shastri Nagar Colony. The Local Commissioner after a site visit and conducting enquiries stated in his report that the said high tension line passes over the roofs of the premises of a number of residents and not only that of Dharamvir Goel. He also observed that most of the constructions had taken place 5 to 20 years ago. In his report it was also mentioned that a girl named Poonam had to have her left hand amputated due to her contact with the high tension wire while playing in the Vishawkarma Mandir. In view of these facts and a ruling of the Haryana State Consumer Commission in Telu Ram Versus HSEB & Ors, that it is the duty of the welfare state to safeguard the lives of its citizens from such hazards, State Commission directed the petitioners to remove the high tension line immediately without demanding any charges for the same. The State Commission also sanctioned Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Hence the present revision petition. Counsel for both the parties were present today. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner stated that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the high tension line was constructed after the colony had come up, because even though the colony may have been approved by the Town Planning Department in 1965, the houses were constructed much later and even the Local Commissioner had opined that they were constructed 5 to 20 years ago. Under these circumstances State Commission erred in holding that it hardly matters whether the houses were constructed earlier than the high tension wire or afterwards. Further such matters can only be decided in a Civil Court and not by Consumer Fora. However keeping in view the sentiments of the residents of the colony the Petitioners were willing to shift the line, provided Rs. 58,195/- were deposited by Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner further brought to our attention Instruction No. 260 of the Sales Manual which deals with the shifting/removal of electricity lines and poles necessitated by the construction of a building in their vicinity. According to this procedure the Department will be entitled to charge for such removal under Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1948. Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand denied the above facts and reiterated that based on adequate documentary and other credible evidence the fora below had rightly concluded that the houses had come up prior to the installation of the high voltage lines which was passing over a number of houses and had also resulted in at least one accident which had been noted by the Local Commissioner. We have considered the submissions made by both Counsel and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The contention of the petitioner that the affected houses had been constructed after the installation of the high tension 11 K.V. line is not substantiated by facts. Nor had Petitioner been able to produce any evidence to this effect. On the other hand credible documentary evidence has been brought on record before the Fora below that the colony was approved in 1965 and site plans sanctioned immediately thereafter. It would thus be reasonable to expect that the houses would have come up in the next 8 to 10 years i.e. by 1975 and, therefore, before installation of the high tension KV line in 1982. It has also been proved through the report of the Local Commissioner that several houses were affected by the installation of this high tension wire and not only one house as contended by the Petitioner. It is also relevant to note that there was at least one casuality because of the hazard posed by the presence of this high tension wire in the colony. No evidence has been brought to controvert this fact by the Petitioners. Petitioners have relied upon instruction 260 of the Sales Manual to state that as per Sub-Section 2 they were authorized to charge for removal of the line. However, the Counsel for Petitioner has not able to clarify whether the high tension wire was installed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or the Indian Electricity Act, 1948. Under the Telegraph Act for example the Petitioners could have charged the respondents only if compensation had been paid to them. In the instant case it has not been the Petitioner contention that compensation was paid. Even otherwise the Petitioners have not been able to produce any evidence that the provisions of Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 would be applicable in this case. Thus Instruction No. 260 does not help the Petitioners. Taking into consideration all these facts we see no reason to disagree with the order of the Ld. Fora below. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and direct the Petitioners to remove the high tension line without demanding any payment towards the costs of shifting it within a period of three months. We also award Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.