ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the District Forum, Shimla in complaint No. 371/2002. 2.Admitted facts of this case are that appellant is a consumer qua Telephone No. SM-4655/212113 installed at his house. Its first bi-monthly bill was in the sum of Rs. 9673/-. It was dated 1.4.1995. Second and third bill dated 1.6.1995 and 1.8.1995 were in the sum of Rs. 22,614/- and Rs. 74,850/- respectively. Here, we may clarify that so far bill of Rs. 22,614/- is concerned, it included the arrears of first bill with effect from 1.2.1995 to 31.3.1995 for Rs. 9,673/- and second bi-monthly bill from 1.4.1995 to 30.5.1995 which was in the sum of Rs. 12,841/-. 3.Appellant started making grievance regarding excess billing, as such the matter was re-examined in the office of the respondents. After allowing rebate of Rs. 34,116/-, out of the total amount of the three bills above referred, a sum of Rs. 63,248/- was claimed by the respondents from the appellant. Even this was excessive according to him. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that his client had not made number of calls reflected in the three bills. Again, it was not disputed at the time of hearing that even after allowing the above rebate, balance sum of Rs. 63,248/- has not been paid till date by the appellant. 4.In this background, a complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of following reliefs by the appellant :- “(i) That the bill dated 1.4.1995, 1.6.1995, 1.8.1995 amounting to Rs. 9,673, 22,614 and 12.841 and 74850 and impugned order dated 9.7.2002 respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That respondents/opposite party may also be directed to restore the telephone No. SM4655/212113 at the aforesaid residential premises of the complainant; (iii) That the respondents/opposite party may kindly be directed to produce the entire record relevant to the case; (iv) That opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the costs of the complaint; (v) Any other relief as to this Ld. Forum may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the complainant. 5.Learned District Forum below after hearing the parties and taking note of the material on the file, has dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. Forum may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the complainant. 5.Learned District Forum below after hearing the parties and taking note of the material on the file, has dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. 6.Though number of contentions were urged at the time of hearing by learned Counsel for the parties, however, we feel that without dilating on those, this appeal deserves to be allowed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 7.Admittedly, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. is a successor-in-interest, besides being a wholly Government of India owned Company, of the erstwhile Posts and Telegraph Department, taking over all its liabilities, as well as the assets fixed or otherwise. Erstwhile Posts and Telegraph Department had issued Instruction No. 4-/59/85-TR, dated 9.4.1986 on the subject - Disposal of excess metering complaints. Broad feature of this instruction is that where there is sudden spurt in the number of calls of a particular telephone, authorities in Exchange have to keep such telephone under observation in the Exchange in the first instance and if the spurt continues, then a person is required to be deputed to the premises where the telephone is installed to verify whether there was some special occasion or otherwise justifying the sudden rise in the number of calls. Alleged three excess bills in this case pertained to the year 1995 and learned Counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar, in our opinion, correctly accordance with law, that the instructions of 9.4.1986 supra were fully applicable to this case. 8.One can understand that first bill being of Rs. 9673/-, there was about 30% increase in the second bill, but in the third bill, the increase was almost 6 times. Thus in the face of the applicable instructions supra, respondents were in law duty bound to have followed the procedure prescribed thereunder. We specifically asked learned Counsel for the respondents to point out anything from the complaint file as to whether instructions have been followed by either keeping the telephone under observation and/or by deputing a person to ascertain the factual position regarding there being any special occasion at the premises where the telephone was installed. He could point out none. We specifically asked learned Counsel for the respondents to point out anything from the complaint file as to whether instructions have been followed by either keeping the telephone under observation and/or by deputing a person to ascertain the factual position regarding there being any special occasion at the premises where the telephone was installed. He could point out none. It hardly needs to be clarified in this behalf that instructions are meant for guidance as well as for being strictly followed by the staff and not that those should only gather dust in the office. As the departmental visualized of such like situations coming forth and then how to deal with those. 9.Faced with this situation, Shri Chauhan learned Counsel for the respondents stated that his case is covered by the Institution No. 2-22/2005-BSNL/TR dated 19.10.2005, as such the impugned order deserves to be upheld by dismissing this appeal. In the face of this submission of Shri Chauhan, further question that needs to be answered by us is whether these instructions of 19.10.2005 are applicable retrospectively or prospectively, as these are silent on this aspect. Thus not having made those retrospectively applicable, clearly shows that those were never intended to be made retrospectively applicable. Because the authorities were well aware that litigation before different Courts/Forums may be pending either on its original side or at appellate/revisional side. It cannot be said that the policy marks were not aware regarding pendency of such cases at different stages under the Act. Therefore it can safely be held that these were not intended to be made retrospectively applicable, as such the submission of Mr. Chauhan based on the instructions of 2005 supra is hereby rejected. 10.In these circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid procedure having not been followed, this is sufficient and good ground to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly. 11.No other point was urged. Chauhan based on the instructions of 2005 supra is hereby rejected. 10.In these circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid procedure having not been followed, this is sufficient and good ground to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly. 11.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we clarify that without having gone into the merits of the case and/or having expressed any opinion thereon, we hereby allow this appeal, thereby setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Shimla, in Compliant No. 371/2002, decided on 2.9.2004 and at the same time remand back the case to the State Government below with a direction to hear the matter afresh and then, come to its conclusions without being influenced by anything said in this order and/or by its previous order. Since parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.9.2007. Since we have fixed the date, in no case fresh notice in any circumstances whatsoever will be issued to the parties and in case any one of them fails to appear, defaulter will be dealt with as per law. Appeal stands finally disposed of in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of costs as per Rules. Case remanded. M.R.B. ———————