ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): Dr. Nitesh Malik, S/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar, R/o 56, Rajdhani Enclave, G.M.S. Road, Near Balliwala Chowk, Dehradun, who has filed a consumer complaint No. 306 of 2013 before the District Forum, Dehradun, has moved an application dated 23.08.2013 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating therein that the following persons have disobeyed the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 10 of 2013 and hence action be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 1- Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun 2- Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., 18 E.C. Road, Dehradun 3- Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun 4- Sh. Upendra, Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. , Vasant Vihar, Dehradun 5- Lineman, Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun 2. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2013 and notices were issued to the persons impleaded in this case. In reply to the notices, joint objections were filed by the aforesaid persons, which is at Paper Nos. 21 to 24. 3. The background of this case is that the applicant Dr. Nitesh Malik has taken an electricity connection No. 6135/126835 from the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short “UPCL”) for a sanctioned load of 3 KW. The electricity connection was inspected by the officials of the UPCL on 04.07.2012 and on the basis of this inspection, a provisional assessment for Rs. 1,28,194/- was made by the Executive Engineer & Assessing Officer – opposite party No. 2 (Paper No. 38). After adjusting the payments made by the applicant in earlier bills, a final assessment for Rs. 1,03,186/- was made vide order dated 21.07.2012 (Paper No. 40). The applicant remitted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- through a demand draft, but the Executive Engineer – opposite party No. 2 did not accept it and returned it to the applicant (Paper No. 42). After adjusting the payments made by the applicant in earlier bills, a final assessment for Rs. 1,03,186/- was made vide order dated 21.07.2012 (Paper No. 40). The applicant remitted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- through a demand draft, but the Executive Engineer – opposite party No. 2 did not accept it and returned it to the applicant (Paper No. 42). The applicant, vide several letters sent to UPCL submitted that he is not making any unauthorized use of electricity; that he has already applied to the UPCL for increasing the electricity load and that the use of electricity by doctors in their clinics comes under the category of “domestic use” and not under the category of “commercial use”. But the Electricity Department, without rejecting these representations by assigning some cogent and logical reasons, issued a bill for the period from 03.04.2013 to 22.06.2013 by changing the applicant’s category to “commercial use” and an arrear of Rs. 1,15,608/- was shown against him in the bill. When the officials of the UPCL neither listened to the applicant nor corrected the bills, the applicant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The applicant had also moved an application for seeking interim relief that the UPCL be directed not to disconnect his electricity connection during the pendency of the case. Since, the District Forum was not functional due to lack of Coram, the Member of the District Forum vide his order dated 12.07.2013, fixed the next date of hearing on 19.08.2013. Upon this, the applicant filed a Revision Petition No. 10 of 2013 before this Commission along with the prayer that interim relief to the effect that his connection be not disconnected till the disposal of the case. This Commission, after going through the record, observed that it was in the interest of justice to grant such an interim relief to the applicant and passed the following order on 13.08.2013: “13.08.13 Sh. S.M. Jain, Advocate has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party. The same be placed on record. Therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party. Learned counsel for opposite party has filed the objections against the application for stay/interim relief moved by the revisionist. The same be placed on record. S.M. Jain, Advocate has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party. The same be placed on record. Therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party. Learned counsel for opposite party has filed the objections against the application for stay/interim relief moved by the revisionist. The same be placed on record. It appears from the interim order that the Member of the District Forum has fixed the next date for hearing of the application for interim relief as 19.08.2013. We, therefore, make it clear that the opposite party – Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited shall not disconnect the electricity connection of the revisionist till 19.08.2013. Put up this revision petition for further orders on 20.08.2013. The revisionist may file the objection against the objections filed by the opposite party on the next date fixed.” 4. Inspite of the above order, the officials of the UPCL disconnected applicant’s electricity connection on 13.08.2013. This led the applicant to file the present application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which has been registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2013. 5. As stated above, in response to notices issued to the opposite parties, the learned counsel for the opposite parties filed objections on 03.10.2013. This Commission, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order on 03.12.2013. “03.12.13 Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that a prima facie case of contempt against Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, 18 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Division, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun and Sh. Upendra, Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun is made out. We, therefore, issue contempt notice against the aforesaid persons showing cause, as to why the office as well as the official vehicle allotted to Executive Engineer as well as S.D.O. be not attached for not complying the order passed by this Commission dated 13.08.2013, thereby directing them not to disconnect the electricity connection of the revisionist till 19.08.2013. The reply of the aforesaid contemptners be filed before this Commission by 16.12.2013. It is further directed that all the aforesaid contemptners shall be present before this Commission in person along with their counsel on the date fixed, failing which this Commission shall be compelled to initiate coercive action against the aforesaid contemptners. Put up on 16.12.2013.” 6. The reply of the aforesaid contemptners be filed before this Commission by 16.12.2013. It is further directed that all the aforesaid contemptners shall be present before this Commission in person along with their counsel on the date fixed, failing which this Commission shall be compelled to initiate coercive action against the aforesaid contemptners. Put up on 16.12.2013.” 6. On 16.12.2013, all the three contemptners viz. Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer; Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal and Sh. Upendra appeared before this Commission and filed objections against the show-cause notice dated 03.12.2013. On 06.01.2014, the learned counsel for the applicant filed reply to the objections filed by the opposite parties. On 20.01.2014, the opposite parties then filed counter reply against the reply filed by the applicant on 06.01.2014. On 05.02.2014, the case was finally heard. 7. After going through the replies and counter replies filed by the parties, we observed that the opposite parties have tendered unqualified apology, but the apology appears to be conditional. Para-6 of all the affidavits filed by Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora (Paper No. 47), Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal (Paper No. 48), Sh. Upendra (Paper No. 49) and Sh. Balbir Singh (Paper No. 50) reads as under:- “6. That in case the Hon’ble Commission considers that the deponent has willfully violated disobeyed the order of the Hon’ble Commission, the deponent tenders unqualified apology for the same.” 8. As per the averments made by Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal and Sh. Upendera in their affidavits the electricity connection of the applicant was disconnected at 10:30 a.m. on 13.08.2013, while the Commission had passed its order on 13.08.2013 after 2:00 p.m. The said order was not in the knowledge of the opposite parties and, therefore, they have not disobeyed the order of the Commission. 9. The applicant, in his counter reply, has stated that his electricity connection was disconnected at 5:30 p.m. and not in the morning. He has also denied that he had refused to make any endorsement of receipt on the original disconnection slip and has alleged that the disconnection slip has been prepared by forgery. 10. We considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The disconnection slip (Paper Nos. 46 & 56) is signed by Sh. Balbir Singh, Lineman, but this slip does not indicate the time of disconnection. 10. We considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The disconnection slip (Paper Nos. 46 & 56) is signed by Sh. Balbir Singh, Lineman, but this slip does not indicate the time of disconnection. The space in the slip for time of disconnection has been left blank by the lineman. Therefore, it cannot be said whether the disconnection was done in the morning as averred by the opposite parties or in the evening as averred by the applicant. But we are of the view that the officials of the UPCL took the action of disconnection in a haste, for the reasons best known to them. The following facts and circumstances of this case clearly expose the intention of the opposite parties- (1) It is true that the electricity bill dated 21.07.2013 (Paper No. 88) indicates the date of disconnection was 13.08.2013, but it is surprising to note that the lineman reached the applicant’s house early in the morning at 9:30 a.m. to give effect to the disconnection. (2) The applicant had received a S.M.S. from the U.P.C.L. on 12.08.2013 (Paper No. 7), which reads as under:- “Dear Customer, 3 days are left for the payment of your Electricity Bill. Kindly pay Rs. 130907.00 for SD 66136126835 to avoid disconnection. Ignore if already paid.” Again, the applicant received another S.M.S. on 13.08.2013 with the following message:- “Dear Customer, 3 days are left for the payment of your Electricity Bill. Kindly pay Rs. 130907.00 for SD 66136126835 to avoid disconnection. Ignore if already paid.” The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted in this regard that such S.M.S’s are sent in a routine manner, but such messages do not mean that the date of disconnection has been extended. We fail to understand such pleas. If the S.M.S. says that the customer has three days’ time to deposit the bill’s amount, then it would be interpreted that the connection will not be disconnected on the date printed in the bill. The plea that such S.M.S’s are sent in a routine way, is not easily digestible, because if such S.M.S’s have no significance, then why the UPCL is wasting time and money in sending such S.M.S’s. (3) We also fail to understand that the disconnection was done at 10:30 a.m. on 13.08.2013. The plea that such S.M.S’s are sent in a routine way, is not easily digestible, because if such S.M.S’s have no significance, then why the UPCL is wasting time and money in sending such S.M.S’s. (3) We also fail to understand that the disconnection was done at 10:30 a.m. on 13.08.2013. Had it been so, the applicant must had informed his counsel well in time, because this Commission’s proceedings in this case started after 2:00 p.m. (4) Had it been in the knowledge of this Commission that the disconnection had been done at 10:30 a.m., it would have passed the order with the directions that the supply be restored. The spirit of the order is that the electricity supply be continued till 19.08.2013. So, even if we concede for a moment that the Commission’s order was not in the knowledge of the opposite parties, it was expected from them, as a mark to show respect to the Commission’s order, to restore the supply immediately after the Commission’s order was brought to their notice. (5) The opposite parties, as discussed above, did not care to take any action in compliance of the Commission’s order and the electricity connection remained disconnected till an interim order was passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, directing the opposite parties to restore the supply. 11. All these facts and circumstances prove it well that the opposite parties had deliberately, intentionally and willfully flouted the interim order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Commission and made a mockery of the majesty of law by not restoring the power supply of the applicant in pursuance of this Commission’s order. The power of contempt has been conferred by the law to the Consumer Fora to punish offender for his/ their willful disobedience/contumacious contempt or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumbled down, if the respect of the judiciary or the judicial system is undermined. From the entire circumstances of the case, we do not hesitate to gather this impression that there has been a calculated action by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 with evil motives on their part. From the entire circumstances of the case, we do not hesitate to gather this impression that there has been a calculated action by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 with evil motives on their part. Therefore, they deserve to be punished under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, keeping in view that the opposite parties have tendered unqualified apology, though conditional, we would not like to punish them with imprisonment, but each of them, i.e. Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer; Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O. and Sh. Upendra, Junior Engineer deserve to be punished with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. So far as the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 5 are concerned, opposite party No. 1 is a public sector unit of the State Government and, therefore, the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against it. Opposite No. 5 is the Lineman, who has acted upon the directions received from opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, we are of the view that he should be exonerated from the contempt proceedings. 12. The Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2013 is accordingly disposed of. The contemptners, i.e. opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are held guilty of flouting the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Commission and each one of them, i.e. Sh. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer; Sh. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O. and Sh. Upendra, Junior Engineer is punished with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, which be paid by them to the applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. After the expiry of the aforesaid period of 30 days, it will be open for the complainant to initiate the execution proceedings against the contemptners. No order as to costs.