JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the Learned Forum cancelled all the bills issued by the appellant with a direction to permanently disconnect the connection of the complainant and to issue fresh bills on that basis. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint with the allegations that he has taken the connection in 1991 for domestic purposes but the appellant took the connection as commercial one and issued bills treating the premises as commercial. The complainant got his connection permanently disconnected in 1997 but, the sirancity department did not here. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. After taking the evidence of the parties, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint. Against which order, the present appeal has been filed. . 4. In the appeal, one Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate appeared on 15.01.2004 on behalf of the opposite party and filed his Vakalatnama and took date of 09.03.2004. On 09.03.2004, the opposite party took time and 11.05.2004 was fixed for hearing. Again on 11.05.2004, the Learned Counsel for the opposite party appeared and requested for time. The case was adjourned for 18.05.2004 with a direction that it should be positively heard on 18.05.2004. Today none appeared for the opposite party and the appellant was heard ex-parte. 5. We have gone through the records. There is definite allegation of the appellant that 4 shops were constructed and connection was given to the .4 shops as well by the appellant. Therefore bills were issued treating the premises as commercial one. For continuous 6 years, the complainant paid all the bills without any objection and all of a sudden, he started saying that the connection was for domestic purposes. 6. It was alleged by the complainant and also decided by the Learned Forum that there has been permanent disconnection. Permanent disconnection cannot be in this way. There should be proper application, proper order, deposit' of fee and then final bill is prepared and then connection is permanently disconnected. On temporary disconnection, the bills are issued even after disconnection. Permanent disconnection can be by completing the formalities. There is nothing on record or in the judgment of the Learned Forum that those formalities were observed. 7. In the ruling reported in 1996 ALL. On temporary disconnection, the bills are issued even after disconnection. Permanent disconnection can be by completing the formalities. There is nothing on record or in the judgment of the Learned Forum that those formalities were observed. 7. In the ruling reported in 1996 ALL. L.J. 1288, M/s. Pillibhit Ispat (Private) Limited and others Vs. U. P State Electricity Board and others, it has been held that liability to pay charges subsists unless contract' itself has been terminated. In the ruling reported in AIR 1990 SC 706, G.M. -cum/Chief Engineer, O.S.E.B. Vs. Rojeshwar Singh the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere disconnection of the electricity supply would not amount to termination of the contract. 8. If there was over billing or dispute about the correctness of the bills, that could have been referred under Regulation 19 to the Department and should have been decided there. 9. In view of what has been said abov8, we find that the order passed by the Learned Forum is not correct. The dispute could not have been entertained by the Learned Forum. The premises were being used as commercial premises. The bills were correctly issued and there has not been any permanent disconnection according to the Rules and Regulations, therefore liability to pay subsisted. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 11.11.2003 is hereby set aside. The complaint in also dismissed. Cost throughout shall be easy.