The existence of the DC line in the premises warranted its re-connection, and the absence of an appeal against the order made it final.

Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President— This is a revision petition against two orders dated 25.7.1995 passed in CDF Case. No. 1043/95 and dated 6.2.1997 passed in CDF Execution Case No. 200/95. No copy of order dated 25.7.1995 has been furnished by the revision petitioner at though a copy of order dated 6.2.1997 has been filed.

2. It appears from the documents filed that order dated 25.7.1995 was passed in the main Case No. 1043/95 directing the CESC to reconnect the DC line of the petitioner/complainant which was dis-connected for non-payment of charges. The CESC raises an objection that it was their policy not to give any new connection in DC line and they propose to instal a new meter in the AC line. As there was no AC line in me premises, the complainant was not agreeable to the proposal of the CESC. The learned CDF had considered both parties submission and ordered that the DC line should be re-connected. No appeal was filed against the said order and the order was put to execution in CDF Execution Case No. 200/95. The said execution case was disposed of by the impugned order dated 6.2.1997 in which the Forum held that its order in the main case shall prevail and the same must be executed by the CESC Ltd.

3. In the revision petition which has been filed after the expiry of two years from the date of disposal of the main case, the revision petitioner, namely, the CESC Ltd. has stated that the order for re-connection cannot be complied with as supply in the DC line has been dis-continued by the CESC long time ago on technical grounds. The fact however, remains that DC line is still in existence in Calcutta and in some premises both the AC and DC lines are co-existing. We, however, appreciate the objection raised by the CESC that there should be no order for the installation of a fresh DC line on account of the policy of the Corporation. But, the line which was in existence and which is sought to be re-connected stands on a different footing. Hence, if the premises in question already contains DC line there should normally be no difficulty to reconnect it. In that view of the matter the order passed by the CDF in the execution case cannot be said to be bad. There is also no jurisdictional error in the order.

4. We have also noted that no appeal was filed against the main order. So the order has become final.

Considering the entire circumstances we are not inclined to allow the revision petition. The revision petitioner shall re-connect the line and if it is really not possible to re-connect the line for genuine technical reasons or for subsequent supervening circumstances, the matter should be brought to the notice of the Executing Court. With the above observations the revision petition is rejected and dismissed.

Revision Petition dismissed.

_