Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—The respondent complainant was having an electric connection for agriculture purposes in respect to his well situated in village Chomu. Since the water of the well went down and well dried up, he requested the appellant to shift his connection to another well in the same village. The appellant accepted his prayer and raised a demand of Rs. 6,561/- against him as shifting charges. The respondent duly deposited such amount on 24.9.1993 and the electric connection for agriculture purposes was shifted to his another well.

2. However, it was as late as on 28.8.1997 that the appellant delivered a bill for Rs. 46,361/- to the complainant. The demand was stated to have been raised on the basis of report of technical auditor. The respondent disputed such demand but under the threat given to him for disconnecting the electric supply to him, he was obliged to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,600/- besides the current liability of Rs. 2,760/-, in the month of December, 1997. For the cancellation of the demand raised he approached the D.F.

3. The case put forth by the appellant before the D.F. was as per standing orders and relevant rules the appellant was justified in raising the demand on the basis of the audit objection. In this behalf the appellant appears to have referred to the standing orders dated 6.1.1990 and 22.8.1992. The order dated 6.1.1990 stated that in the cases of shifting of electric connections in the same field a rebate of 40% in the charges shall be given by the department. The order dated 22.8.1992 though stated that in the case of shifting the electric connection from one place to another the consumer shall have to deposit charges @ Rs. 7,000/- per pole but at the same time it had also been clarified in that circular that the charges applicable to the cases of agriculturists were still under consideration of the authorities concerned. After having taken note of such circulars the D.F. cancelled the disputed demand directing the appellant at the same time to redraw the demand payable by the respondent in that behalf. It is against such order of the D.F. that the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant - urged before us that the matter was considered by the Settlement Committee of the department which disallowed the claim of the department with regard to dismantling charges, included in the disputed demand. It was submitted that the respondent had agreed to deposit the balance amount in instalments and that he had availed of the concession of paying the balance amount in instalments. It was thus submitted that the impugned order was not justified on the facts of the case. We however fail to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants.

5. It is not in dispute in this case that it was as early as in the year 1993 that the appellant had charged a sum of Rs. 6,561/- on account of shifting charges of his electric connection from one well to another well in the same field. It is also not in dispute that the disputed demand was raised on the basis of technical audit. The report of the technical auditor was not brought on the record of the case. No basis for raising the disputed demand was also disclosed by the appellant in the reply filed by them or by the technical auditor in his report, which was not produced before us even. No opportunity of being heard was ever provided by the appellant before raising the disputed demand. Above all, the circular dated 22.8.1992 did not permit the appellant to raise demand against the respondent @ Rs. 7,000/- per pole. The very fact that the appellant had considered to charge dismantling charges from the respondent shows that the material was to be shifted from one well to the another. When the same material was to be shifted by the appellant from respondent’s well, which had dried up to another well, there could have been no question of again charging the respondent for the same material. Under such circumstance the D.F. w