ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.1086 of 2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent had applied for electric connection for tubewell which was denied to him on the ground that there were dues against his father which were not cleared. The District Forum, however, dismissed the -2- Complaint. The Respondent challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in Appeal. In the Appeal, the Respondent has placed on record payment receipts and no due certificate showing that he had already cleared the entire dues of the petitioner and that a no due certificate has also been issued by the Petitioner. Relying on these documents, his Appeal was allowed and the following directions were issued: 8. “Hence with the above observation and discussion the question as such is answered in affirmative with the directions that Respondents-O.Ps. would issue the tubewell connection to the appellant-complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing this order subject to complete other required formalities if any by the O.ps. With these observation, the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 passed by learned District Forum, Bhiwani is set aside for all intents and purposes and the appeal accordingly stands allowed with the above observation.” 3. In the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the dues are still pending against the Respondent and that the officer before whom the payment was deposited has been chargesheeted. 4. We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The State Commission has relied on no due certificate dated November 2016 which clearly shows that there were no dues and that there was no default. It is therefore clear that -3- the dues which were against the father of the respondent have already been cleared by the respondent. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is not authorised to deny the connection to a party on the ground that certain dues were pending against his predecessor. The remedy under the law is always available to the Petitioner for recovery of such dues which remain unpaid. They cannot use it as a tool to deny the legitimate connection to a party. In view of this, we found no merit in the present Revision Petition. The act of the Electricity Department is condemnable. Due to that act, the Petitioner has made the Respondent to suffer for many years. It is clear that the Respondent had applied for the electricity connection for his tubewell and it is apparent that due to non-availability of the electricity, he is unable to use the tubewell and therefore is suffering. While dismissing the present Revision Petition, a cost of ₹20,000/- is imposed upon the Petitioner which shall be paid to the Complainant by way of Demand Draft within four weeks from today. | 
