State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Gopal Rana vs North Delhi Power Ltd. on 3 December, 2025
FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 31.10.2023
Date of Hearing: 25.09.2025
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.565/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. GOPAL RANA
S/O MR. KANWAL SINGH RANA
R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. KHERA KALAN
DELHI-110082
...APPELLANT
(Through Mr. Kapil Jain & Associates
Mob.9810510137)
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.
(NOW TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.)
OFFICE AT
NDPL HOUSE, HUDSON LINES
KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI-110009
...RESPONDENT
(Mr. Harish Purohit, AR,
Mob.9971707476 &
Email: [email protected])
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Kapil Jain, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Harish Purohit, AR of the respondent.
PER : HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 15
FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal (First Appeal) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V, North-West District (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Complaint (CC) No. 1466/2009, inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
2. While the Appellant was Complainant before the District Commission and the Respondent was Opposite Party before the District Commission.
3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protect Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as CP Act) led by Sh. Gopal Rana (hereinafter referred to as complainant) The complainant is seeking to provide electricity connection for the tube well of the complainant at khata no. 62 Khasra numbers Village Khera Katan: Delhi-82, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,50,000 as compensation to financial losses suffered by complainant
2. A brief facts of the present case are that the complainant is a professor of education in Maharishi Valimiki College of Education Delhi University and Owner/Bhoomidar of agriculture land measuring 8 big has 16 biswas situated in khata no. 62,khasra no. 68/2, 3 village Khera Kalan Delhi-110082. It is stated that the agriculture land was allotted and transferred to complainant by the revenue department in lieu of his land during the consolidation proceedings of village in June 2005. Previously it was owned by Sh. Amar Singh Jain.DISMISSED Page 2 of 15
FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
3. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Amar singh Jain his son namely Anil Kumar Jain became the owner of the land left by his father and revenue department as per consolidation act and rules allotted other land to sh. Anil Kumar Jain It is further stated that after taking the possession of the allotted land complainant applied for agriculture tube wall electricity connection in September 2005 for irrigation of the land in October 2005 came to know from the officials of opposite party that already an agriculture tube well electricity connection existed in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Jain and there were some dues with respect to electricity connection.
4. It is stated that complainant through his written application vide diary no 1031 dated 05 10.2005 stated that there was no tube well electricity connection or other accessory existed at the site and requested for new electricity connection. Thereafter approached to the officials of OP several times for sanction of new electricity connection in his name but it was delayed due to electricity dues on previous connection in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Jain but no documentary evidence was provided It is further stated that in the month of May 2007 vide letter no 7668 dated 17.05.2007 complainant informed to OP that the electric connection in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Jain was removed 5/6 years back and written representation dated 22.05.2007 stating that complainant has no concerned with previous arrears of electricity dues as agriculture land after consolidation proceedings possessed by complainant and requested for new connection but same was denied by the OP
5. It is stated that on 17.04.2009 complainant submitted another application vide diary no. 1090 for new tube well electricity connection to be expedited but officials handed over five bill to complainant and on seeing them complainant was DISMISSED Page 3 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL shocked and surprised and again submitted written application dated 22.04.2009 vide diary no. 1529914 to the office of OP. The OP failed to install electricity connection for tube well despite repeated requests due to when complainant suffered acute mental agony and harassment. Hence present complaint filed."
4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 26.05.2023, whereby it held as under:
"12. We have heard both Sh. M.K. Gill counsel for complainant and Sh. Harish Purohit and Sh Ajay Joshi ARs for OP and have gone through the record.
In order to appreciate respective contentions of both the parties let us peruse the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi In the case of Mrs. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs NDPL 129 (2006) DLT 213 Division Bench of Hon'ble High court discussed the powers vested in DERA and DERC which are reproduced hereunder:-
14. In our opinion, there is no distinction between the purchaser of a premises who was aware that there were outstanding electricity dues against the previous owner/tenant, and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the new owner/occupant before supply can be continued / restored. This is because of the statutory provision contained in Clause 2 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply which has been quoted above.
15. In our opinion, whenever a person purchases a property, it is his duty to find out whether there are outstanding electricity dues in relation to the premises or not, and he cannot be allowed to say later that he was unaware of the fact that there were electricity dues of the previous owner / tenant.DISMISSED Page 4 of 15
FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
16.In view of the General Condition of Supply, it is the duty of the new owner/occupant to himself make enquiries and find out whether there was such dues or not. The General conditions of Supply are statutory in nature (being delegated legislation), and hence the question of bonafide or malafide does not arise, and in either case the new owner/occupant of the premises has to pay the dues against the previous owner / tenant, Page 1121 if he wishes the electric supply to be continued/restored.
17. It is obvious that the purpose of framing Clause 2.1
(iv) of the General Conditions of Supply was that many persons against whom there were huge electricity dues tried to avoid payment of the same by selling / transferring the property, and in this way the electricity department/electricity company could not recover its dues. In our opinion, there is no illegality or unconstitutionality in sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the General Condition of Supply.
18. It may be mentioned that in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P State Electricity Board AIR 1998 4 SCC 1715, the Supreme Court took the view that even in the absence of a contract the terms and conditions of supply will be governed by the statutory Regulations and they will applicable to the consumers who will be bound by them.
19. Under Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply contained in the tariff order 1997-98 and 2001-
02 which has been framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, it has been specifically stated that supply of electricity is subject to the condition that the applicant deposits development charge, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including outstanding dues against the premises and / or disconnected connection.
20. The above Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply has been framed under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as well as Section 49 of the DISMISSED Page 5 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and hence is a piece of delegated legislation.
21. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has struck down Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply. With respect to him, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the said Clause as it comes within the purview of the Tariff Order framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission as well as under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. We do not agree that the General Conditions of Supply requires approval of the State Legislature under the proviso to Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as in our opinion they are not Regulations made under Sector 79.
22. We agree with the learned Single Judge who has disposed of Writ Petition (C) No. 3532/2003 Ms. Madhu Garg v. North Delhi Power Ltd.by directing her to pay the dues for the electricity consumed by one Jathedar Richpal Singh. However, as already observed above, even if she was unaware she has to pay the outstanding dues.
26. In our opinion, this is not the correct position of the law. The new owner/occupant, whether he was a heir or successor or not, has to pay the outstanding dues if he wants continuation / restoration of the electricity connection. Further, notice of existence of arrears is not the requirement in the Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of the Supply. Also, there is no requirement for the licensee to first initiate recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against the old consumer before disconnecting the supply. As observed by the Supreme Court in Swastic Industries v. MSEB (vide para 5):-
Page 1123 It would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board. Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the Suit DISMISSED Page 6 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL and the limitation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under Section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges.
27. In our opinion, an interpretation of the law which furthers the preservation and protection of public property ought to be adopted. If arrears of electricity charges outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with a contractual claims of damages, it would encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or other in respect of such arrears and evade the consequences of non-payment of electricity charges viz. disconnection / non-resumption of supply.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Sothern Power Vs. M/S Srigdhaa Beverages dated 1st June, 2020 has held as under:-
15. In our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges which needs to be emphasized:
A. That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in parimateria with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.
16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which has emerged, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside while opining that appellant No.1 would be well within its right to demand the arrears due of the last owner, from the respondent-purchaser.
13. The full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, in a recent case titled as K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2109-2110 of DISMISSED Page 7 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL 2004 decided on 19.05.2023 alongwith several other Civil appeals laid down the principle of law as under:
I. Conclusions
328. The conclusions are summarised below:
a. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities;
c. For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided Even if the consumer is the same, but the PART I premises are difference, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not are connection;
d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character;
e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners:
f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act;
g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a DISMISSED Page 8 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge;
h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.
14. Now applying the principle of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case it is admitted by complainant that he is the owner of agriculture land measuring 8 bigga 16 biswas situated in Khata No.
62. Khasra No 88/2,3 village Khera Kalan, Delhi 82 It is further admitted by complainant that earlier it was owned by Sh. Amar Singh Jain prior to consolidation proceedings. In October 2005 complainant also came to know that there was already a tubewell electricity connection in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Jain. As per letter dated 08.10.2009 complainant was in full knowledge about outstanding dues against the tubewell connection in the name of Amar Singh Jain. In addition to it complainant has to fullfil other commercial formalities for tubewell agriculture connection i.e a certificate from the Block Development Officer as per rules. As per above discussed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court complainant is under legal liability to clear the dues of previous owner and also fulfil the additional formalities as follows alongwith that mentioned under Section 43 of Electricity Act and Regulation16 of DERC of 2007 which have been made mandatory by Govt. of NCT i.e No objection certificate from advisory committee under concerned DC (Revenue) based on the recommendation of Block Development Officer and Agriculture Department of Govt. Of NCT. The complainant miserably failed to file any documentary proof of completion of all the legal formalities and payment of dues of previous owner Sh. Amar Singh Jain DISMISSED Page 9 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
15. The Ld. Counsel Sh. M.K. Gill vehemently argued and relied on judgment of Harpal Singh Vs. NDPL dated 09.07.2010 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Interestingly ARs of OP also relied on the same judgment. In addition to other judgments and highlighted Para no 9 & 10 We have gone through the judgment. It is distinguishable the present fact and circumstances of the case
16. On the basis of above observation and discussion and complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency in service by NDPL in the present fact and circumstances of the case. Hence present complaint is dismissed"
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to consider that the respondent was deficient in service by not providing the agricultural electricity connection on the agriculture land which was allotted to him by the Revenue Department during consolidation proceedings. Further, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any prior dues, as the land was not purchased by the appellant from Mr. Amar Singh Jain; rather, it was allotted to him by the Government in the course of consolidation proceedings. It is further submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent has falsely claimed that an electricity connection (K.No. 43104217235) was granted, whereas that connection pertains to the appellant's residential property in Khera Kalan, Delhi, and not to his agricultural land. The District Commission has also failed to consider the valid and relevant judgment in Harpal Singh vs. NDPL (dated 09.07.2010, Hon'ble Delhi High Court), which supports the appellant's case. The Commission has wrongly taken a negative view, despite both DISMISSED Page 10 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL parties relying on this precedent, which clearly establishes that a new applicant cannot be burdened with the past dues of unrelated parties. Further, the District Commission ignored the certificate issued by the BDO on 13.09.2005, which confirmed the appellant's eligibility and completion of the requisite formalities for a Tube Well connection.
6. The respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations/grounds of the appeal and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order.
7. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the parties.
8. We have carefully and thoroughly perused the material available on record as well as the written submissions filed by the parties.
9. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant before it.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant is the owner of agricultural land measuring 8 bighas 16 biswas situated in khata No.62, Khasra No.68/2 and 68/3 village khera kalan Delhi- 110082. This land was allotted and transferred to him by the Revenue Department in lieu of his land during the consolidation proceedings in June, 2005. After taking the possession of the allotted land, the appellant applied for an agriculture tube well electricity connection in September, 2005 for irrigation purposes. Thereafter, the appellant came to know that there were some dues on the agriculture tube well electricity connection existed in the name of Mr. Amar Singh Jain, the previous owner of the land.
11. It is submitted by the appellant that he had applied for a new tubewell electricity connection after the land was allotted to him by the Revenue Department during the consolidation proceedings and he cannot be held responsible for the payment of alleged dues DISMISSED Page 11 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL of the previous owner, as the said land was not purchased by the appellant but allotted to him by the Government. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that he had completed the requisite legal formalities by filing the certificate 13.09.2005 issued by the Block Development Officer for the grant of a Tube Well connection. The appellant further submitted that the connection bearing K.No.43104217235 is a domestic (DL) connection provided to him for his residence at Plot No.327, extended Lal Dora Khera Kalan, Delhi and the said connection does not pertain to the agricultural connection.
12. We find that in the present case, it is admitted that the appellant is the owner of the agricultural land allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings by the Revenue Department. The District Commission has rightly referred to the case law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, which establishes that the new owner or occupant, whether a heir or successor or not, is liable to pay the outstanding dues if he desires continuation or restoration of the electricity connection. Therefore, the occupant or owner is liable to pay the outstanding dues on the tubewell electricity connection.
13. It is noted that the District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant as the appellant has failed to fulfill the additional formalities as follows alongwith that mentioned under Section 43 of Electricity Act and Regulation 16 of DERC of 2007 which have been made mandatory by Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi i.e. No objection certificate from advisory committee under concerned DC (Revenue) based on the recommendation of Block Development Officer and Agriculture Department of Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi.DISMISSED Page 12 of 15
FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
14. The appellant has filed with his evidence before the District Commission the recommendation for power connection for tubewell for irrigation and other agricultural purposes and the same also mentioned in the impugned order. The same is reproduced as under for reference:
15. From perusal of the same, the said document has been issued by the Block Development Officer (N.W.) which recommends the connection for irrigation and other agricultural purpose. At serial FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025 MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL no.8, it is stated "Whether Tubewell connection already installed, if yes, H.P. sanctioned : No". It is clear from the said document that there was no tubewell connection already installed in the premises and further recommended new connection with load of 5 HP only. However, the appellant has failed to file any further document which fulfill the additional formalities as follows alongwith that mentioned under Section 43 of Electricity Act and Regulation 16 of DERC of 2007 which have been made mandatory by Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi i.e. No objection certificate from advisory committee under concerned DC (Revenue) based on the recommendation of Block Development Officer and Agriculture Department of Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi.
16. It is pertinent to mention that there were two requests i.e. request No. 0809583503 & 0910849 regarding the tubewell connection for agricultural purposes and the domestic connection at home respectively, raised by the appellant before the respondent. In the written statement of the respondent filed before the District Commission, it is admitted by the respondent that the consumer request No.0910849 has been allowed and a new DL connection bearing K.No.43104217235 was installed on 18.01.2010, which does not pertain to the tubewell connection on the agricultural land.
17. From a perusal of the above impugned order, it is clear that the respondent was directed to place on record the No Objection Certificate from Advisory Committee under concerned DC (Revenue) based on the recommendation of Block Development Officer and Agriculture Department of Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi. However, the appellant has not complied with this direction.
DISMISSED Page 14 of 15 FA/565/2023 D.O.D.03.12.2025
MR. GOPAL RANA VS NDPL
18. It is admitted that the case is only related to assessment of escaped demand and is not a case of any default on the part of the respondent. The Electricity bill as raised on the basis of units computed as per law that too only for the NDPL period and there is no discrepancy in the same.
19. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the District Commission and uphold the order dated 26.05.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in CC No.1466/2009. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
20. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
21. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
22. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 03.12.2025.
DISMISSED Page 15 of 15