Complainant/petitioner had taken electric connection to run rice and general mills.  Respondent Electricity Board raised a demand of Rs.65,969/-, aggrieved against which petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 2001.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission relying upon the judgment of this Commission in

-2-

“Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad vs. Dy. Executive Enginner, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors., 2010 CPJ 886” in which it has been held that where a consumer had obtained an electric connection for stone crushing, i.e. for commercial purpose, he does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Complainant/petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

          Counsel for the petitioner relying upon other two judgments of this Commission in “Jayant Kumar Sahu vs. Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patel – II (2006) CPJ 71 (NC) & Kurji Holy Family Hospital vs. Boehringer Mannheim India Ltd. & Ors. – III (2007) CPJ 371 (NC)” contends that the amended definition of section 2 (1) (d) came into force w.e.f. 15.03.2003 and the same was not retrospective in operation.  As the present complaint was filed in the year 2001 i.e. prior to the amendment, the amended definition would not apply to the present case.

          Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes the preposition and states that he is unable to defend the impugned order and the same

-3-

be set aside and the case be remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

          In view of the concession made by the counsel for the respondent, revision petition is allowed.  Impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 08.05.2012.

          Since it is a very old case, we would request the State Commission to despise of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance.