ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President.—This revision petition essentially raises a dispute about realization of electricity dues which the complainant alleges to be not maintainable, as the period for which the realization is sought, the complainant had not availed of any services of electricity supply nor was it rendered to or consumed by the complainant and therefore the stand of the electricity department was erroneous. The complaint CC/46/2008 was accordingly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mallapuram, Kerala. The Assistant Executive-Engineer filed an appeal no. 701 of 2009 against the order of the District Commission that has been dismissed, as a result whereof, the present revision has been filed by the appellant. The revision petition had been entertained and on 23.07.2012 it was adjourned with the passing of the following order:—

“In view of the nature of the dispute and direction dated 12.12.2011 of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Anis Ahmed, consideration of this petition is adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to raise the matter if there is any further development in between.”

2. Since long the Apex Court had already disposed off the matter in the case of UP power corporation (Suora), whereafter this revision petition remained pending and then the petitioner was called upon to file a copy of the minimum guarantee agreement vide order dated 06.08.2018, which is extracted here in under:—

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she will be filing copy of Minimum Guarantee Agreement. May be filed within a period of four weeks with copy to the learned counsel for the respondent.

List the matter for final hearing on 14.01.2019.”

3. It may be mentioned that the said agreement has not been filed and the arguments were earlier heard in 2019 and 2020 when orders were reserved and could not be delivered and in the post Covid period the matter was listed and on 15.W.2024, when the following order was passed:—

“From perusal of the file we find that this is a petty dispute relating to realization being insisted upon by the Kerala State Electricity Board for a sum of Rs.59,000/- and odd on which the pronouncement of the District Commission partly allowing the complaint in paragraph 17 reflects a reasonable approach to the problem. The findings of fact have been affirmed by the State Commission. We see no reason to keep on adjourning this revision petition as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

IA/212012

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The cause shown for filing the revision petition with delay of 134 days way back in the year 2012, seems plausible to condone the delay. The delay is condoned. The application is allowed and the revision petition is admitted.

In view of what has been stated above post for hearing on 25.10.2024.”

4. Again the matter was heard on 30.12.2024 and the following order was passed:—

“Heard Ms. Rafi Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned orders proceeded by incorrectly approaching the• problem, in as much as, the complaint could not have been allowed as the respondent was admittedly in default of payment of the charges contemplated under the Minimum Consumption Agreement. Learned counsel has relied on paragraph 23 of thejudgement of the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries, (1990) 1 SCC 731, to contend that the said contract was binding on the respondent, and even if the unit had been taken over by the Kerala State Finance Corporation, the liability of the minimum consumption charges had neither enclosed nor could it be waived, in as much as, the agreement postulates the payments even in such contingencies. Learned counsel therefore submits that in view of the said enunciation of law by the Apex Court, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Advocate Ridhika holding before of Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned coun