S.S. Sandhawalia, President - First Appeals No. 465 and 469 are cross appeals directed against the same order of the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar merely directing the restoration of electricity supply to the consumer and awarding compensation of Rs.1000/- for gross deficiency in service for doing so.

2. The facts may be noticed from First Appeal No. 465 of 1993, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Pal. The complainant admittedly was a consumer of electricity having account No. JB-13/ 4235 in village Marwa Khurd. His firm stand in the complaint was that he had diligently paid the bills for electricity charges but to his consternation the electric supply was disconnected on the, 7th of June, 1992. Inevitably he wrote a number of communication to the officers of the Haryana State Electricity Board and also personally approached the Sub Divisional Officer Shri Surjit I Singh of Bilaspur repeatedly. However, the officials of the Board demanded the supply of service wire from the complainant but without giving any reason of indicating as to where the previous• service wire had gone. Aggrieved by the persistent refusal to reconnect the supply the consumer was compelled to knock at the door of the District Forum and seek the restoration of his electricity connection and compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

3. In defending the complaint the Board took up the some-what curious and untenable plea that after more than 2 months of the alleged disconnection of the consumer’ supply on the 7th of June, 1992 he was detected to be stealing energy on the 28th August, 1992 and consequently a fine of Rs.1000/- was imposed and First Information Report was lodged. Because the aforesaid dues were not paid the electricity was thereafter disconnected.

4. The District Forum in adjudication upon the matter took notice of the conclusive fact that admittedly a letter dated 14th of July, 1992 had been written by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur to the consumer demanding that he should supply the service wire to the department before entertaining his case for reconnection. Therein it was also admitted that the electricity connection was disconnected in June, 1992 whilst a totally contradictory stand was taken in the written statement that the disconnection was effected after the 28th of August, 1992 on the alleged ground of theft of electricity etc. Holding that once there was disconnection of the supply admittedly in June, 1992 no question of theft of electricity subsequently nearly two months thereafter could arise, the complaint was allowed in the terms noticed at the outset with a further observation that no rule or instruction could be brought to the notice of the District Forum which required the supply of service wire by the consumer himself.

5. Mrs. Sushil Dogra, the learned counsel for the appellant-Board with her usual persistence and ability had first taken up the tall stand that the rules and regulations of the appellant-Board not only permitted but mandated the supply of service wire from the consumer for reconnection etc. Even long adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellant-Board to cite before us the alleged rule and regulation on the said point. However, Ultimately no statutory rules or regulations or even any instructions or guideline in the sale circular could be brought to our notice which could sustain the unauthorised demand of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur upon the consumer to supply the service wire nor any reason was given for the demand or explain as to how the original wire prior to the disconnection of the electricity had vanished. This being so the main plank of the appellant - Board in the present appeal falls to the ground and inevitably the same must fail.

6. In fairness to Mrs. Dogra we might as well notice her vehement stand that herein an First Information Report was sought to be lodged and the consumer was in fact detected stealing energy on the 28th of August, 1992. It was sought to be argued th