PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. There is a delay of 126 days in filing this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation -2- of delay. Delay has been explained in paras 2 & 3 of the application, which are reproduced as under:- “2. That this Revision petition against the order of the Hon’ble State Commission could not be filed in time as the revisionist having knowledge regarding the said order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 05.12.2012 when the officials of the respondent came to the revisionist to cut off the electricity connection. 3. That thereafter the revisionist engaged the present counsel who applied for the certified copy on 07.12.2012 before State Commission and got the certified copy on 07.12.2012. After receipt of the Certified copies of the impugned order the present revision has been filed within stipulated period before the Hon’ble National Commission.” 2. This appears to be a false stand set up by the petitioner because the certified copy placed before this Commission clearly goes to show that the certified copy was supplied free of cost to the -3- parties on 17.05.2012. The petitioner has no qualms in telling lies. He has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has taken the court for a ride. The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view:- 3. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 4. Similar view was taken in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.07.2010 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. -4- 5. Now we turn to the merits of this case. The petitioner is running a shop for commercial purposes. The complaint itself is very significant. Paras 1 and 3 of the complainant runs as follows:- “1. That the complainant is the registered consumer of your energy vide Meter No. EF-21-0131 (P) installed at my shop situated at Bandepur, Sonepat (Haryana) and am retired person from Jal Board, Delhi. 3. That I am consuming power as commercial in my shop as stated above and paying the consumption bills for the same regularly and there is nothing due against me in this regard.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. It is thus clear that the petitioner has been caught in his own pincer. The State Commission has rightly held that this is a commercial purpose and dismissed the complainant. He placed reliance on two authorities of this Commission reported in “Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others 2010 CTJ 886 (CP (NCDRC)” and “D. Ghodawat Versus R.R.B. Energy Ltd. 2010 CTJ 928 (CP) (NCDRC)” . -5- 7. The law does strike a snap in allowing such complaint. The petition is thus dismissed with the costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12(3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within 2 months from today, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realization. Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. | 
