We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, counsel for the petitioner. 12 daysdelay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in first appeal no. 737/2006. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 21.02.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad in complaint No. 198 / 2005 by which order the District Forum accepted the complaint and gave the following directions to the DHBVN :- eeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the checking report dated 6.9.2005 and the memo of recovery No. 943 dated 7.9.2005 for the recovery of Rs.60,000/- issued by the Nigam. We direct the respondents to refund the amount of penalty of Rs.60,000/- which was already recovered by the respondents under duress and coercion from the complainant within a period of one month failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realisation with costs of proceedings, to the extent of Rs.2,500/-. 3. The State Commission allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that at the time of checking of the electric connection of the complainant on 6.09.2005, it was found that the complainant was extracting electric energy by bye-passing the meter and by connecting the load directly to the electric cable of electricity supplying company and even the connected load was found to be 30 BHP as against the sanctioned load of 25 BHP for which a penalty of Rs.60,000/- was levied by the authorities. The said penalty has been paid by the complainant. 4. Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, counsel for the petitioner would assail the findings and the order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not based on the proper and correct appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. In this regard, his first submission is that so-called inspection carried out by the Officers / Authorities of the respondent on 6.09.2005 was not carried out in the presence of the petitioner / complainant or his representative and the meter which was installed at the tubewell of the complainant was not removed and sent to any laboratory for its checking. He also submits that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the complainant under duress else his electric connection would have been disconnected by the respondent authorities. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected. Ample material has been brought on record to establish that the complainant was extracting electric energy in an unauthorised manner by bye-passing the meter which fact itself would show that the complainant was indulged in extracting electric energy and, therefore, the respondent authorities were well within their rights to impose the requisite penalty. In our view the State Commission has taken a just view of the entire evidence and material produced on record and has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum which was not based on correct and proper appreciation of the material obtaining on record. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.