Complainant/petitioner approached the respondent electricity corporation for a domestic light connection and the latter assured -2- them of laying the electric lines and supply of electricity. As per Averments made in the complaint, the respondent neither laid the electric lines nor supplied the electricity. Inspite of the fact that no electricity was supplied, respondent issued notice to the petitioners raising demand for the arrears of electricity charges from 1988-1998 in the year 2003. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the demand raised by the petitioner, direction to the petitioner to lay electric line and give electricity to the complainants. Stand taken by the respondent before the District Forum was that the petitioners had taken the connection under Kantia scheme. As per this scheme, the petitioners were to lay the line on their own cost and consumption charges were to be recovered on fixed charges basis. Since the complainants/petitioners had failed to pay the charges for the period 1988-1998, the electricity supply was disconnected, poles and electricity wires were also removed. Bills were raised against the petitioner in the year 2003. District Forum quashed the demand raised by the respondent and directed it to give electricity to the complainants within 45 days of -3- the date of order for repairing the electricity line. Costs of Rs.500/- has been awarded to each of the complainants. Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner states that the original records of the District Forum, Bulandshahar is not available. Copies of the complaint, Written Statement and the evidence led by the parties is not available on the file. Since the records were not available, we directed the counsel for the respondent to produce the Kantia scheme as well as the records of the Corporation regarding the applications filed by the petitioners for getting the connection under the Kantia scheme, installation of poles and the supply of the electricity. The Kantia scheme and the terms of the scheme under which allegedly, the respondent gave the electric connections to the petitioners are not on record. We asked the respondent to explain as to whether the bills were being raised regularly or they were raised, for the first time, in the year 2003. Counsel for the respondent fairly -4- concedes that it is not possible for the respondent to produce these records after such a lapse of time. Since the records are not available and the respondent is not in a position to supply us its record regarding Kantia scheme, installation of poles and laying of the lines, it is not possible for us to decide the case on merits between the parties. Admittedly, the demands for electricity charges were raised in the year 2003 for consumption of the electricity pertaining to 1988-1998. Demand notices vary from Rs.12,000-14,000 which include the penal interest on the amounts not paid. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, we pass the following order: i) Respondent Corporation is restrained from recovering the amount under the demand notice from the petitioners. ii) Petitioners are put at liberty to apply for fresh electric connections. In case, the petitioners apply for fresh connections, then the respondent is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of new connections (without insisting on the payment of the arrears) subject to their fulfilling the conditions for supply of electricity under the Electricity Act and its feasibility. -5- Since this order has been passed taking into account the peculiar facts of this case, this order be not taken as a precedent for future reference. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
