' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 15-8-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 5-7-2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondent- plaintiff was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff applied for grant of electricity connection for tube well to be used for agriculture purpose. He was issued demand notice for payment of expenses for material of installation. He also deposited the security amount in the year 2008. The connection was energized. After that he was issued revised demand notice for payment of Rs.69987 on 24-3-2009 which was challenged in the suit and prayed that it be declared without lawful authority. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed and the learned trial Court invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 5-7-2011 the learned trial Court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15-8-2012, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the rates of material installed for energizing connection of the plaintiff-respondent were enhanced, therefore, on internal audit the amount demanded through the revised demand notice was recoverable from the respondent, therefore, the impugned demand notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent for payment of enhanced price.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, states that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below and the petitioners have failed to show any misreading and non-reading on the part of the courts below. Learned counsel relying upon case titled Water and Power Development authority and others v. Umaid Khan (1988 CLC 501) argues that the amount of the revised demand notice cannot be recovered from the plaintiff-respondent.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their ' able assistance.
6. No doubt there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below and the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the courts below. Furthermore learned counsel for the petitioners also failed to show any defect, in the findings recorded by the courts below.
7. It is an important feature that when a person applies for electricity connection some amount is demanded to meet with the expenses of installation and demand notice is issued in favour of the applicant. Enhancement of dues on the basis of internal audit report is not permissible under the rules. Audit affair is a matter between authority and its audit, department. Demand notice issued by authority to consumer having evaluated cost of material to' be supplied to him for giving him electric connection. Authority reserved no right that amount demanded through notice could be enhanced by unilaterally or on account of enhancement in price of material. Authority would not be entitled to recover amount subsequently enhanced unilaterally by it on pretext that price of material supplied to consumer had gone up. Audit report held could not make consumer liable for any amount and could not bring about any agreement between such authority and consumer making latter liable to pay amount enhanced on basis thereof. I am fortified by the judgment of this Court reported (supra). Concurrent judgments and decrees of two courts below based on law and evidence on record could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of this Court when courts below while passing such judgments and decrees had neither misread nor misconstrued evidence on record nor had acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of such jurisdiction.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision having no merit is dismissed.