This revision petition challenges the order dated 28.12.2005 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in Appeal no. 648/A/ 2002. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/opposite party (OP) and set aside the order dated 12.09.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia (in short, he District Forum. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation that he had been billed excessively for the electricity supplied to his premises (Husking Mill) on the ground that the electricity meter was running about 50% slow and the seal of the meter appeared to have been tampered with (uplicate. The main contention of the petitioner/complainant was that the respondent/OP did not follow the relevant statutory provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 regarding testing of the meter with prior notice to the consumer and, therefore, supplementary bills raised by the respondent/OP were illegal. 3. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents, the District Forum allowed the complaint, quashing the demands in the supplementary bills and awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by OPs to the complainant within sixty days. 4. The appeal filed by the OPs resulted in the impugned order of the State Commission, as noticed above. 5. We have heard Ms. Namita Roy on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents/OPs and considered the relevant documents. 6. Ms. Roy has essentially reiterated the grounds cited by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharya has drawn attention to the inspection report dated 13.01.1999 which was drawn up by the officials of the respondent/OP in the presence of the consumer/complainant/petitioner and also signed by him. This report specifically notes both the observations, viz., meter seals had been tampered with (uplicate and the meter was running about 50% slow. Mr. Bhattacharya has further referred to the detailed discussion of the relevant statutory provisions of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 in the impugned order of the State Commission. He has specifically pointed out the reference to the observation of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 14421 of 1996 Honle Supreme Court CESC Ltd. v Shri N.M. Banka and Others, in which the Court observed that the correct course for a consumer with a dispute regarding the correctness of the electricity meter or of the billed electricity consumption would to apply to the Electrical Inspector designated (under the above-mentioned Act). In this case, the petitioner did not adopt that course and instead chose to approach the District Forum. 7. In the face of the findings in the report of the inspection conducted in the presence of the consumer/complainant/petitioner, it is indeed difficult to agree with the submissions of Ms. Roy. 8. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission because it does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error that may warrant exercise of the revisionary powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.