ORDER K.S. Gupta, Member—In this revision filed against the order dated 24.1.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur, notice was issued to the respondent limited to relief (ii) as granted by the State Commission. By the said order, the appeal was allowed in following terms:- “(i) that the complainant appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. half of the penalty amount imposed by the respondents and within one month from the date of depositing the amount by the complainant appellant the respondent would give electric connection to the complainant appellant. (ii) that so far as the case of theft as per vigilance report dated 22.8.2005 is concerned, the matter is referred to the Settlement Committee of the respondents which will give the final verdict in respect of the allegation of theft after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant appellant.” 2. Short submission advanced by Shri Manu Mridul for the petitioners/opposite parties is that the dispute concerning unauthorized use of electricity be referred to the Dues Settlement Committee under term/condition No. 50(2) read with 48 (B) (4) of the Terms & Conditions for Supply of Electricity-2004 framed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer. Both these terms/conditions being material are reproduced below:- “48 (B)(4):- The Nigam shall be entitled to take action against a consumer for unauthorized use of electricity and other offences committed by him under Sections 126, 127 and 135 to 151 of the Act. 50 (2):- A consumer shall have the option of approaching the Consumer Dues Settlement Committee as per clause 52 instead of approaching the Forum, for settling dispute relating to charges payable by a consumer except those assessed under clause 48 (B) or (C). A consumer may refer his dispute to appropriate committee on payment of fee as per item 15 (A) of Part-II.” 3. Combined reading of both these terms/conditions would show that the jurisdiction of Dues Settlement Committee is barred as regards settling the dispute arising out of unauthorized use of electricity by a consumer. Thus, the order of State Commission in regard to relief (ii) above deserves to be set aside being legally erroneous. 4. Accordingly, while allowing revision, part of the impugned order at (ii) above is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided on merit limited to that issue. No order to cost. 5. Thus, the order of State Commission in regard to relief (ii) above deserves to be set aside being legally erroneous. 4. Accordingly, while allowing revision, part of the impugned order at (ii) above is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided on merit limited to that issue. No order to cost. 5. Parties will appear before the State Commission for direction on 10.9.2008. Revision petition allowed. *******