This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th June 2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission. By the said order, the State Commission accepted the appeal of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short, he UHBVNLthe officers concerned of which are the respondents in this revision petition) and set aside the order dated 14.06.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (in short, he District Forum by which the District Forum had struck down the penalty of Rs.35,660/- levied by the UHBVNL on the petitioner and directed to refund the said amount which had been deposited by the petitioner/complainant. 2. The complainant had an electric connection at his premises which was inspected by an Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of the respondent on 24.10.2002. During this inspection, it was noticed that the electric meter was running too slow and the M & T seals had been tampered with. The meter was removed and a checking report was prepared on the spot in the presence of the wife of the petitioner/ complainant and also a tenant. The latter too refused to sign the inspection report. Treating this case as one of theft of electricity, respondent no. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner/complainant directing him to deposit Rs.35,660/- as the assessed penalty and also informing that the petitioner/complainant had the right to prefer an appeal to the Executive Engineer concerned within 30 days of the notice. The petitioner/complainant was further informed that in case the amount was not deposited within 48 hours, an FIR would be lodged. It would appear that the petitioner/complainant deposited the amount within the aforesaid period but filed a consumer complaint challenging the penalty on the ground that the checking report was false and prepared in his absence and there was no electricity theft as alleged. 3 (i) We have heard Mr. Keshav Rai, on behalf of the petitioner. (ii) The revision petition has been filed after a delay of 247 days, but no application has been filed seeking condonation of this delay. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121] the view having been relied upon/reiterated by the Apex Court itself in two more recent cases, viz., Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. & Another [(2009) 7 SCC 768] and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v Anita Sena Fernandes [(2011) 1 SCC 53]. (iii) Even then, we have considered the merits of the matter. It is clear that the inspection report was prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance) in the presence of the wife of the complainant and a tenant named Hardeep Singh, but both of them refused the sign the report in acknowledgement. Therefore, it cannot be held that the inspection report was prepared at the back of the complainant or a responsible member of his family. Description of the findings relating to the meter also shows clear evidence of tampering which could only be with the objective of committing theft of electricity. The assessment of penalty was done in accordance with the instructions on the subject and notice was duly issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. The District Forum, therefore, erred in holding that due procedure was not followed in assessing and imposing the penalty. The State Commission thus rightly set aside the order of the District Forum. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground for us to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed both on the grounds of unexplained inordinate delay as well as on merits.