JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrestha , J . : - Thisappeal has been filed against the order dated 17-6-2010 passed by the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Datia in C.C. No. 33/2010. 2.As per the case of the appellant, he had an auto parts shop for which he had aseparate meter but the shop was closed on 9-4-2003 under intimation to the M.P.Electricity Board. On being advised to disconnect the connection of the shopthey took away the meter and the wire connecting their mains. The appellant wasshocked to receive a bill in November. 2009 in the sum of Rs .18,518/- against which he filed an application on 17-11-2009. 3.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that once having disconnected theconnection, there was no conceivable reason for the electricity board to haveissue the bill and that too in the sum of Rs .18,518/- in connection with the meter provided to a small shop which was closedin 2003 itself. 4.Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it was not a case of permanentdisconnection (PDC) and therefore, zero reading charges were liable to be paidby the subscriber with the result the bill inflated to Rs .18,518/-. 5.The District Forum turned down the request of the appellant on the ground thatsince affidavit has not been filed and the connection have not been disconnected permanently, the complaint had no force. The appellantthereafter got a document Page No. 134 of the meter reading book under theRight to Information Act in which it is clearly mentioned that the connectionhas been closed as PDC. This therefore, clinches the issue and consequently theelectricity board cannot charge for this meter from 2003 onwards. Accordingly,the appeal is allowed. The bill issued in November, 2009 in the sum of Rs . 18,518/- is quashed.