Learned counsel for the respondent has filed Vakalatnama.

2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

3.      Complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum for quashing demand of Rs.1,89,881/- as sundry charges for the electricity bill dated 05-09-2009.  Opposite party/respondent contested complaint and submitted that on 24-05-2006 it was found that electric meter for domestic supply was burnt and whole supply load of the hospital as well as of domestic use was to put on domestic connection and on this basis bill was raised.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and quashed demand raised by two bills dated 17-07-2009 and 05-09-2009.  Appeal filed by the opposite party was partly allowed and State Commission observed that opposite party could recover only Rs.87,171/- against which this revision petition has been filed by the complainant.

4.      Hon’ble Apex Court in Anis Ahmad’s case held that cases pertaining to Section 126 to 135 of Indian Electricity Act are not to be entertained by Consumer Fora and in such circumstances, this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with this revision petition and revision petition is to be dismissed.

5.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act for Redressal of his grievance with no order as to costs.