Delhi District Court
Lokesh Verma vs The Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 20 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SALONI SINGH, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA Civil Suit No. 10174/16 Case Registration No. DLSH03-000770-2016 Sh. Lokesh Verma, S/o, Sh. U.C. Verma, R/o, 3/212, 2nd Floor, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
...Plaintiff Vs. The BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Through its Manager/G.M, Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. ...Defendant Suit for Declaration, Permanent & Mandatory Injunction Date of Institution : 07.04.2016 Date of Reserving Judgment : 16.05.2024 Date of Judgment : 20.07.2024 Decision : Partly decreed Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:18:56 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.1/35 Judgment:-
In the present suit, the plaintiff has mainly prayed that the bill number 101051923707 of Rs. 28,5701/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Only) dated 08.01.20162 (hereinafter also referred as, "bill in question") issued by the defendant be declared as null and void and the defendant, its officials, agents etc., be restrained from raising in future said illegal and unwarranted charges upon the electricity connection of the plaintiff.
1) Facts of the case/Pleadings of the parties: - The facts of the case, as given in the plaint, are briefly stated as follows:-
a) In August 2011, the brother of the plaintiff purchased from one Ms. Anu Sharma a flat on the second floor of property bearing no. 3/212, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (hereinafter also referred to as, "suit property"), specifically shown in red colour in the site plan. There was no electricity meter installed in the suit property at the time of its said purchase. The plaintiff applied to the defendant for an electricity connection in his name at the suit property. An electricity connection, bearing CA no. 150234056, was installed by the defendant at the suit property in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as a registered consumer, regularly paid the electricity bills raised by the defendant.
1 The bill amount payable as mentioned in the said bill, Exhibit PW-1/6, is Rs. 28,576.48/-. 2 The date of 08.01.2016 is mentioned as the due date in the said bill and the bill itself is Digitally signed dated 23.12.2015. SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:19:04 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.2/35
b) At the time of installation of the said electricity connection, there were no outstanding dues of any nature of the defendant in respect of the suit property. As per the policy of the defendant, an electricity meter/connection is not installed at a premises without clearance of the previous dues. In January 2016, the plaintiff was shocked to receive an electricity bill with due date of 08.01.2016, bearing no.101051923707, from the defendant including outstanding/other charges of Rs. 22,996/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Six Only). The plaintiff several times visited the office of the defendant and explained to the officials that there were seven other electricity meters installed at the entire property no. 3/212, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and despite which the defendant had chosen the plaintiff's meter for imposing the unwarranted previous dues, which had not been consumed by the plaintiff. The defendant paid no heed to the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to clear the outstanding amount or else they would disconnect the electricity supply and remove the electricity meter.
c) On 01.04.2016, the officials of the defendant disconnected the electricity connection of the suit property illegally, while the suit property was locked, and the plaintiff came about to know the same from his neighbours. The bill in question raised by the defendant is false and has been raised to harass the plaintiff and to extort money from him. The plaintiff was constrained to file a complaint at the Police Station (P.S.) Farsh Bazar on 01.04.2016 and to the Chairman/President of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:19:12 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.3/35 Commission (DERC), New Delhi against this illegal act of the defendant.
2) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, the following preliminary objections have been raised: - That on 24.04.2015, an inspection was conducted at the premises in question and it was found that one electricity connection, bearing CA no.100757396 (also referred as "disconnected connection"), was lying disconnected on account of non-
payment of dues of Rs. 45,993/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Only). That in the same premises, electricity was now supplied, vide CA no. 150234056 registered in the name of the plaintiff and CA number 100752365 registered in the name of one Ms. Kanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the "live connections"). That the registered owners of the said live connections were served notices on 11.05.2015 in which they were asked to stop the supply of electricity through these live connections to the portion of the premises in which the electricity had been disconnected for non-payment of dues. That the plaintiff and the other registered consumer Ms. Kanti Devi were given an opportunity for personal hearing, but they did not avail the same. That after consideration of all facts and on receiving the due approvals for transfer of dues, vide order dated 04.12.2015, the dues of the disconnected connection was equally transferred to the plaintiff and Ms. Kanti Devi. That the plaintiff insisted after the transfer of the dues that the dues be transferred proportionately to all the other live connections existing at the site and not just to connecting providing electricity to the first and second floor. That on the request of SALONI Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:19:19 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.4/35 the plaintiff, the premises were again visited and on re- inspection, it was found that the disconnected connection was providing electricity to the second floor and the other six meters existed on the ground floor were being used for commercial purpose only. That the other six meters had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected connection in April 201 and only the connection in the name of Rahul Verma had been installed after the disconnection of the disconnected connection for non-payment of dues. That, however, the said connection was only for the ground floor, whereas the disconnected connection provided electricity to the second floor and on inspection, it was informed that the occupant and user of electricity at the first and second floor is the same. That the disconnected connection was registered in the name of Ms. Dayawanti and despite issuance of several disconnection notices, the consumer had not paid the dues and eventually Ms. Dayawanti had issued cheques in discharge of her liability which were dishonoured and for which notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I. Act") had been issued. That the dues of Rs.45,993/-(Rupees Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Only) are legal and are pending against the first and second floor of the premises. That the plaintiff had applied for the new connection in October 2011 in his capacity as a tenant of Ms. Anu Sharma and at the time of grant of the new connection, the outstanding dues had not been claimed from the plaintiff as the plaintiff in connivance with an official of the defendant had played fraud and at the time of the commercial feasibility report, no dues were shown as outstanding. That the plaintiff was granted new connection Digitally signed SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:19:27 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.5/35 on the basis of (i) a copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2011 in favour of Ms. Anu Sharma in respect of second floor of the property, (ii) a rent agreement between the plaintiff and Ms. Anu Sharma, (iii) an affidavit of the plaintiff dated 08.10.2011 with undertaking to pay all accumulated and outstanding dues against the premises and authorizing the defendant to recover the same from the plaintiff, (iii) a No Objection Certificate (NOC) of Ms. Anu Sharma in favour of the plaintiff and (iv) the identity card of the plaintiff. That when the defendant came to know of the said fraud played by its official in clearing the commercial feasibility report despite the dues pending against the premises, action was taken against that official and his services were terminated. It is denied that the brother of the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Ms. Anu Sharma. It is submitted that at the time of grant of the new electricity connection, the plaintiff has represented to the defendant that Ms. Anu Sharma is the owner of the suit property and he was her tenant and when the electricity connection was registered per directions of this court, the plaintiff has again supplied a copy of GPA registered in favour of Ms. Anu Sharma and the rent agreement and again represented that he is the tenant of Ms. Anu Sharma. It is alleged that the plaintiff has deliberately not provided the details of his brother. It is further submitted that at the time of grant of a new connection, the commercial feasibility report is prepared and it is verified whether there are any dues against the premises in question and a new connection is granted subject to clearance of all pending dues and completion of all formalities. It is further submitted that in the present case, the defendant's commercial feasibility SALONI Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH Date: SINGH 2024.07.20 18:19:34 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.6/35 +0530 report showed that no dues were pending against the premises and this could have happened on account of a mistake or fraud and whenever there is fraud, there is a presumption that the beneficiary is a party to the fraud. It is stated that as the beneficiary in this case is the plaintiff, therefore, it is presumed that when he applied for the new connection, he was aware of the outstanding dues and, therefore, manipulated the things so that the commercial feasibility report showed no dues as pending against the premises. It is also submitted that at the time of applying of a new connection an undertaking is provided by the applicant that the applicant would clear the outstanding dues, if any pending against the premises, and such an undertaking had been given by the plaintiff and he is bound to clear the dues. It is submitted that the pending dues had been transferred and were reflected in the electricity bill dated 23.12.2015 after following the due process of law, which commenced with inspection on 26.04.2015 and the plaintiff was duly served the show cause notice and he had received the speaking order. It is denied that the electricity of the suit property was disconnected illegally.
3) A replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff denying the averments/allegations made in the written statement. It is stated that no notice was ever received by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not aware of the show cause notice or the personal hearing. It is further stated that in the year 2016, the plaintiff came to know about the previous outstanding dues of the premises when he received the bill in question. It is stated that in the year 2011, the plaintiff's brother had purchased the suit property from Ms. Anu Sharma and the plaintiff had applied SALONI Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:19:41 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.7/35 for a new electricity connection in his name, which was duly installed and that subsequently the plaintiff's brother purchased the first floor of the same property in the year 2012 from Ms. Ira Malhan, in which an electricity meter was already installed in the name of Ms. Kanta Devi. It is submitted that Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is attracted as in the present case the electricity meter was installed in the year 2011 and the bill in question's date is of 08.01.2016.
4) During the pendency of the present suit proceedings, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") filed on behalf of the plaintiff allowed vide order dated 11.04.2016 with directions to the defendant to restore the electricity connection at the suit property without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the plaintiff was directed to fulfil all the commercial formalities in this regard.
5) On completion of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
6) Evidence: - Both the parties were given an opportunity to lead their evidence. The plaintiff proceeded to first lead his evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff SALONI only Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.8/35 18:19:49 +0530 examined himself and stepped into the witness box as PW-1.
PW-1 tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit as Exhibit PW-1/A and has placed on record the following documents: - copy of the complaint made to DERC dated 01.04.2016 as Exhibit PW-1/1, copy of the electricity bill dated 16.11.2012 as Exhibit PW-1/2, copy of the electricity bill dated 16.05.2013 as Exhibit PW-1/3, copy of the electricity bill dated 28.07.2014 as Exhibit PW-1/4, copy of the electricity bill dated 26.09.2015 as Exhibit PW-1/5, the copy of bill in question dated 23.12.2015 (with due date of 08.01.2016) as Exhibit PW-1/6, the copy of demand note for new connection as Exhibit PW-1/7 and the copy of complaint made to the P.S. dated 01.04.2016 as Exhibit PW-1/8. In his affidavit, PW-1 deposed on the same lines as stated in the plaint and was cross-examined by the Learned Advocate for the defendant. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. The matter was then listed for defendant's evidence.
7) In support of their case, the defendant called upon and examined two witnesses, including Mr. Desh Deepak Sharma (field executive of the defendant) as DW-1 and Mr. Rajan Kumar (Senior Assistant Accounts Officer, Karkardooma Division, of the defendant) as DW-2. DW-1 stepped into the witness box and tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit as Exhibit DW-1/A and has placed on record the copy of the site verification report dated 26.04.2015 as Exhibit DW-1/1 (OSR). DW-2 stepped into the witness box and tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit as Exhibit DW-2/A and has placed on record the following documents: - copy of show cause notice dated 16.10.2015 as Digitally signed SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:19:55 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.9/35 Exhibit DW-2/1 (OSR), copy of speaking order dated 04.12.2015 as Exhibit DW-2/2 (OSR), copy of note-cum- declaration as Exhibit DW-2/3 (OSR), downloaded statement of account as Exhibit DW-2/4, copy of letters and notices in the name of Ms. Dayawanti as Exhibit DW-2/5(Colly) (OSR), copy of the representation of plaintiff as Exhibit DW- 2/6, the copy of TF and CF report as Exhibit DW-2/7, the copy of K. no. file of plaintiff containing his undertaking as Exhibit DW-2/8 (Colly)(OSR), the copy of K. no. file of Smt. Dayawanti as Exhibit DW-2/9 (OSR), and the inspection report dated 22.02.2016 as Exhibit DW-2/10. Both DW-1 and DW-2 were cross-examined by Learned Advocate for the plaintiff. No other witness was examined by the defendant.
8) Final Arguments: - On completion of defendant's evidence, final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties. Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that a new electricity connection had been installed in the name of the plaintiff in the suit property and no notice was received by the plaintiff before transfer of the dues. He argued that the defendant had transferred the dues after four years and, therefore, the claim of the defendant was time barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff further argued that a consumer has no concern with the alleged fraud by an official of the defendant and for which the consumer cannot be made liable. Lastly, he submitted that the bill in question is illegal and the defendant has not even given status of any recovery Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:20:01 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.10/35 proceedings (civil or criminal) initiated against Smt. Dayawati.
9) Ms. Ritu Gupta, Learned Advocate for the defendant submitted that the case of the plaintiff is not that the transfer of the dues is illegal, in fact, the plaintiff has pleaded that the dues be transferred on pro-rata basis to all the existing meters in the premises. She argued that the plaintiff has presumed that the connection given was without any no dues certificate.
She further argued that the defendant is a big discom company with lakhs of consumers and it is possible that dues on a connection are subsequently discovered on account of a fraud by their own official or because of a bona fide mistake of the company. Learned Advocate for the defendant submitted that the defendant has specifically pleaded in their written statement that the official of the defendant had committed fraud and because of which no dues was reflected in the commercial feasibility report generated before granting the connection to the plaintiff. She argued that the defendant has shown that there was a disconnected connection at the premises for non-payment of dues in the name of Smt. Dayawanti, therefore, under Regulation 49 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 (for short, "Supply Code"), the dues had been legally transferred after following the due procedure. Lastly, Learned Advocate for the defendant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K C Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2109-2110 of 2004 dated 19.05.2023 to submit that the limitation of two years, as mentioned in Section 56 (2) of the Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:20:07 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.11/35 Electricity Act, is not applicable to the right of the defendant to recover the dues from the consumer and, therefore, the plea of the plaintiff that the claim of the defendant is time barred is not maintainable.
10) Reasons for decision/Findings: - The submissions have been considered and the record of the case has been thoroughly perused. The issue-wise findings of this Court are as follows:
11) Issue No. 1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the present suit has challenged the bill in question as illegal mainly on three counts. Firstly, it is contended that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the alleged dues/other charges, as transferred by the defendant and reflected in the bill in question, as the corresponding electricity was not consumed by him. It is submitted that the previous electricity bills issued by the defendant of the suit property did not contain any entry of the said previous dues. Secondly, it is contended that the defendant had illegally transferred the alleged dues/other charges only to the plaintiff despite there being seven other electricity connections in the property. Thirdly, it is contended that the bill in question is time barred. The defendant's case briefly is that the dues of the previous occupier had been legally transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with Regulation 49 of the Supply Code and that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble SC in K.C. Ninan's case (supra), the bill in question is not time barred.Digitally signed by SALONI
SALONI SINGH Date: SINGH 2024.07.20 18:20:16 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.12/35
12) Before proceedings further, it is imperative to first consider the legal framework applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present suit. The law governing distribution and supply of electricity to households/consumers in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi is the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, "Electricity Act"). The right of a consumer to apply and obtain electricity and the corresponding duty of the distribution licensee to supply electricity to an owners' or occupiers' premises is governed by Section 43 of the said Act. Section 43 (1) of the Electricity Act provides that, "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply..." As per the explanation clause of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, an 'application' is stated to include not only the complete application form but also the documents showing payment of 'necessary charges'. Under Section 45 of the Electricity Act, the distribution licensee is empowered to fix charges for supply of the electricity as per the licence and the tariffs fixed from time to time. Further, Section 50 of the said Act empowers the State Commission to specify an Electricity Supply Code providing for recovery of electricity charges, among other things. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 50 of the said Act read with Sections 57, 86 and 181 of the said Act, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission has made the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 (Supply Code), which is applicable to the present case. Chapter III of the said Supply Code deals with New and Existing Connections in SALONI Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:20:22 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.13/35 which Regulation 20 (1) allows for change in name of consumer in cases of change in ownership/occupancy of property. Chapter V of the said Supply Code deals with metering and billing, wherein Regulation 46 casts an obligation on the consumer to get a special reading done by the licensee at the time of change of occupancy or on the premises falling vacant and to obtain a no-due certificate from the licensee. Chapter VI of the Supply Code deals with disconnection and reconnection in which Regulation 49 of the said Chapter provides for disconnection on non-payment of licensees dues, which is reproduced below: -
i The Licensee may issue a disconnection notice in writing, as per section 56 of the Act, to the consumer who defaults on his payment of dues giving him fifteen clear days to pay the dues. Thereafter, the Licensee may disconnect the consumer's installation on expiry of the said notice period by removing the Service Line / Meter or as the Licensee may deem fit. If the Consumer does not make the payment within six months of the date of disconnection, such connections shall be treated as Dormant Connection.
ii The Licensee may take steps to prevent unauthorized reconnection of such consumers disconnected in the manner as mentioned above. Wherever Licensee discovers that connection has been re-connected unauthorisedly, Licensee may initiate action as per provisions of section 138 of the Act. Further, in case Licensee discovers that the supply to such premises has been restored through another live connection, notice to registered consumer/user of such live connection shall be given to stop such illegal supply immediately failing Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:20:28 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.14/35 which pending dues of disconnected connection shall be transferred to his account and non- payment of such transferred dues may be dealt with as per Sub- Regulation (i) above.
13) Section 56 of the Electricity Act provides for disconnection of supply in default of payment, which reads as follow: - (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:
Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest, - (a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.Digitally signed by SALONI
SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:20:36 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.15/35 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
14) Evidently, Regulation 49 of the Supply Code empowers the licensee (the defendant in the present case), in the circumstances mentioned therein, to transfer the pending dues of a previously disconnected connection (due to non-payment of dues) of a premises to the registered consumer/user of the electricity supply restored through another live connection to such premises.
Therefore, the first objection raised by the plaintiff with respect to the bill in question that only charges for the electricity consumed by him can be recovered by the defendant is contrary to said Regulation and, thus, not valid. The circumstances in which Regulation 49 of the Supply Code becomes applicable is where (a) there exists a disconnected connection of a premises (in accordance with Section 56 of the Electricity Act) and (b) the licensee discovers that supply to such premises has been restored by another live connection. Further, before transfer of the pending (previous) dues, the licensee is bound to issue a notice to the registered consumer/user of such live connection immediately to stop such illegal supply and if such registered consumer/user fails to do so, the licensee may then transfer the pending dues to the account of such registered consumer/user.
Digitally signed by SALONISALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:20:43 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.16/35
15) At the first instance, it is to be considered in the present suit whether the circumstances for invoking Regulation 49 of the Supply Code, for transfer of the previous dues, existed and whether the defendant had legally transferred the pending dues (of the disconnected connection) to the plaintiff.
16) The plaintiff's case is that in August 2011, his brother had purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner Ms. Anu Sharma, and at that time there was no electricity meter installed in the suit property and the plaintiff had got a new electricity connection bearing CA no. 150234056 (the live connection) installed at the suit property in his name and was regularly paying the electricity bills of the said connection. The defendant has disputed the said averments made by the plaintiff claiming that the plaintiff had applied for the new connection as a tenant of Ms. Anu Sharma and that the plaintiff's brother is not the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he is/was the occupier of the suit property having been purchased by his brother in August 2011. In proof of their claim, the defendant has placed on record the K no. file of the plaintiff's new connection as Exhibit DW-2/8 (Colly) (which was confronted to PW-1 as Exhibit PW-1/DX1). The documents of Exhibit DW-2/8 (Colly) have not been disputed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has admitted his signatures on them.
Exhibit DW-2/8 (Colly) comprises of copy of the application forms of the plaintiff for change in connection, the copy of the declaration given by the plaintiff, copy of the installation test report, incomplete copy of a General Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2011, (in respect of sale of second floor of property Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032), stated to Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:20:51 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.17/35 be executed by Smt. Radha Tiwari in favour of Anu Sharma, copy of rent agreement dated 15.09.2011 between Anu Sharma and the plaintiff for a period of eleven months from 15.09.2011 to 14.08.2012 where Anu Sharma is stated to be owner of property no. 3/212, II Floor, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, copy of Affidavit-cum-undertaking of the plaintiff dated 08.10.2011, and copy of affidavit-cum- undertaking of Anu Sharma dated 08.10.2011 again stating therein to be owner of premises 3/212, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and mentioning the plaintiff as the tenant. On one hand, the plaintiff has stated in his plaint and his affidavit of evidence, Exhibit PW-1/A, that his brother had purchased the suit property in August 2011. On the other hand, the plaintiff admittedly has furnished the said documents (i.e., rent agreement dated 15.09.2011 and affidavits dated 08.10.2011) to the defendant, at the time of applying for the new connection, wherein Anu Sharma is still stated to be the owner of the suit property, and the plaintiff is stated to be her tenant. Even though the plaintiff has not filed the sale/transfer document of the suit property in the name of his brother, he has confirmed in this cross-examination that his brother had purchased the suit property. If, as per the plaintiff, the brother of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in August 2011, then how was Anu Sharma still the owner of the suit property as in September- October 2011. Evidently, the plaintiff has either furnished the said false documents to the defendant or has deposed falsely before the court that his brother had purchased the suit property in August 2011. The same could have been verified only if any sale/transfer document of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff's brother was produced. It is based on these very Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.18/35 18:20:58 +0530 documents that the defendant seems to have sanctioned the new electricity connection in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, the energization date of which is 24.10.2011. Now after filing of the present suit, the defendant had certainly become aware of the possibility that the plaintiff may have furnished false documents of ownership/occupation of the suit property for obtaining the electricity connection. The defendant despite which it seems neither took any action nor conducted any inquiry under the Electricity Act or the Supply Code to ascertain the ownership documents of the suit property. The defendant goes on to allege that even after the direction given by this Court, vide order dated 11.04.2016, for restoration of the electricity supply/connection of the suit property, the plaintiff had again furnished the same documents. The plaintiff in his cross- examination has denied furnishing any documents at the time of the said restoration of the electricity supply/connection of the suit property. The defendant has not placed on record those documents that they claim the plaintiff had subsequently furnished at this time for the restoration of the electricity supply. Even assuming the plaintiff had furnished the same documents showing himself as tenant of Anu Sharma even in the year 2016, the defendant not only failed to inform the court but has also not filed those documents.
17) Notwithstanding the said apparent discrepancy in the status of ownership of the suit property, there is no dispute that the new connection was granted in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been occupying the suit property. To show that the plaintiff had been regularly paying the electricity bills (till the bill in question) issued in respect of the suit property by the Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:21:05 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.19/35 defendant and that the previous bills had no mention of the previous dues/other charges, the plaintiff has placed on record copy of the electricity bills of the years 2012 to 2015 as Exhibit PW-1/2 to Exhibit PW-1/5. It is pertinent to note here that all the said bills and the bill in question are issued in respect of the suit property.
18) The defendant does not dispute having raised the said bills, Exhibit PW-1/2 to Exhibit PW-1/5, and the bill in question, Exhibit PW-1/6. The defendant claims that they had subsequently discovered, when they had conducted an inspection at the premises in question on 24.04.2015, that in respect of the premises there was already the disconnected connection in the name of Smt. Dayawanti on account of non-payment of the dues of Rs. 45,993/- (Rupees Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Only) and that the same premises was being supplied electricity through the two live connections i.e., in the names of registered consumers Lokesh Verma/plaintiff and Kanta Devi. It is to be noted that the defendant has not specified in their written statement whether the said disconnected connection in the name of Smt. Dayawanti was in respect of the entire property in question or any portion or floor thereof.
19) The defendant, to prove the said averments, has examined DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence, Exhibit DW-1/A, has reiterated the said averments and has specifically stated that he was the one, who had visited and verified the property no.
3/212, Gali Ganga Ram, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 on 26.04.2016 and on verification, it was found that in respect of the premises in question in which there was the disconnected Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.20/35 18:21:13 +0530 connection, electricity was now being supplied through the two live connections. In proof thereof, DW-1 has placed on record a copy of the physical site verification report of the inspection conducted by him on 26.04.2016 as Exhibit DW-1/1 (OSR). DW-1, to prove the execution of the said report, has identified his signatures on the report at point A and has also identified the signatures of Mr. R.K. Yadav, the Recovery Officer, on the said report at point B. Several questions were put to DW-1 in his cross-examination regarding the physical inspection/site verification stated to be conducted by him on 26.04.2015 and the procedure followed for the same. DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had visited the property no. 3/212, Gali Ganga Ram, Chota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (hereinafter also referred as "property in question") for inspection by himself on 26.04.2015. DW-1 has also stated that there were shops on the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. Further, DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had found two separate electricity meters inside the property at the ground floor and that there were no other meters installed with the said two meters. Further, DW-1 has stated that he only noted the CA numbers of the said two meters and that he came to know the names of the registered users of the said CA numbers after verifying the same from the office.
20) Apparently, there appear to be inconsistencies in the version of DW-1, the statements made in the written statement and the physical site verification/inspection report (Exhibit DW-1/1). In paragraph no. 2 (of preliminary objections) of the written statement of the defendant, it is stated that the property in question was inspected on 24.04.2015, and in its paragraph no. 6 Digitally signed SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:21:19 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.21/35 (on merits), it is stated that the inspection was carried out on 26.04.20115. No document has been placed on record by the defendant to show that any inspection was conducted at the property in question on 24.04.2015. There is no averment in the written statement that there was any subsequent inspection on 26.04.2015. There is also no averment in the written statement that any physical site verification/inspection report had been prepared of an inspection conducted at the property in question on 24.04.2015 and/or 26.04.2015. The date on which the inspection was conducted by the defendant or even when the inspection report was prepared is not clear from their evidence. The defendant has not specified the provision/regulation of the Electricity Act or the Supply Code or of any other applicable regulations/rules under which the inspection(s) of the property in question had been conducted. The defendant has also not produced any register or specified the applicable regulation or rules to show the procedure adopted for carrying out such inspection (s) at the property in question.
21) Generally, an inspection of a site is conducted at the direction/instance of the organization concerned in respect of which formal instructions/directions are issued/given. The person authorized to conduct such an inspection is required to give prior intimation to the residents/occupants (if any) of the site of inspection. The authorized person/designated person visits the site and conducts inspection and prepares the report at the site itself in the presence of independent witnesses, preferably nearby residents. In the present case, the defendant seems to have followed no proper/formal procedure for conducting the inspection(s) and the report, Exhibit DW-1/1, appears to have SALONI Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:21:25 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.22/35 been casually prepared. There is no document placed on record by the defendant to show the authority/locus of DW-1 to conduct the inspection on 26.04.2014 or for conducting the inspection as stated on 24.04.2014. DW-1 in his affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A, has specifically stated that only he had visited and conducted the inspection at the property in question on 26.04.2015. There is no mention in the said affidavit or the report, Exhibit DW-1/1, about the time, date or place where the inspection report had been prepared by DW-1. DW-1 in his cross-examination has denied having prepared the report at the office the next day i.e., on 27.04.2015. In the inspection report itself (Exhibit DW-1/1), apparently there appears to be an overwriting in the date of site inspection. DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had conducted the inspection on 26.04.2015 between 2:00pm and 3:00pm, however, again there is no mention of the same in the affidavit, Exhibit DW-1/A, or the report, Exhibit DW-1/1. The above discrepancies create a doubt on the date on which the inspection (if any) of the property in question had been conducted and the manner the report may have been prepared, which in turn casts a shadow on the authenticity of the said report.
22) The report, Exhibit DW-1/1, itself appears to be vague and incomplete. Admittedly, the entries from the serial no.1 to 3 and from the serial no. 5 to 12 in the said report have been left blank. The said report mentions the details of the disconnected connection in respect of which the dues were to be transferred as bearing CA 100757396 (CRN 1210000724) in the name of registered consumer Dayawanti and its site address as 3/212, Gali Ganga Ram NR. Hanuman Mandir. The report does not Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:21:34 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.23/35 mention the details of the specific portion/area which was previously being supplied electricity through the said disconnected connection. It is only the table below serial no. 3 of the said report that has been filled in ink mentioning the CA numbers as 150234056 and 100752365, the corresponding meter numbers as 14297457 and 13203496, and the corresponding names of registered consumers as Lokesh Verma and Kanta Devi. The address of the said registered consumers has been mentioned only as 3/212, S/F Gali Ganga Ram, Chotta Bzr NR. Hanuman Mandir, whereas admittedly, the first floor was in the occupation of the plaintiff's brother having the electricity connection registered in the name of Kanta Devi. DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had noted only the CA numbers of the two electricity meters that he had found on the ground floor, however, the report Exhibit DW-1/1 in the said table also mentions the details of the registered consumers. If DW-1 had entered details of the registered consumers/users subsequently, the same finds no mention in the report itself. Further, at serial no. 4 of the report it is mentioned that the site was visited on 26.04.2015 and no meter of the disconnected connection was found at the site and that other two SOS exist on site. The remaining serial numbers of the report are blank. The report does not specify the area/portion/premises/floor to which the disconnected connection was previously supplying electricity. From the said report, it cannot be discerned that the disconnected connection was found to be supplying electricity to the premises of the two live connections or to the first or second floor of the property in question. The report, Exhibit DW-1/1, is not consistent with the version of the defendant in the written statement and the affidavit of DW-1 (Exhibit DW-1/A). The Digitally signed SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:21:41 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.24/35 above said factors raise a serious doubt on whether any inspection had been conducted on 24.04.2015 and/or 26.04.2015 at the property in question and, therefore, the testimony of DW-1 is not wholly reliable.
23) The defendant to show the existence of the said disconnected connection in respect of the property in question has placed on record the K. number file of the registered consumer Dayawanti as Exhibit DW-2/9 (Colly) and copy of the notices issued under Section 56 of the Electricity Act and Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the defendant to Dayawanti for clearance of the pending dues as Exhibit DW-2/5 (Colly). The plaintiff does not seem to dispute the existence of the said disconnected connection in respect of the property in question. As already pointed out, it is not clear whether the disconnected connection was supplying electricity to the entire property in question or any portion/floor thereof. In the said K. number file (Exhibit DW-2/9 (Colly)), there is mention of the electricity connection being at house no. 3/212, Gali Gangaram, Shahdara Delhi-110032. It does not mention the area or portion of the property in question to which the electricity was being supplied through the said disconnected connection. DW-2 in his cross-examination has vaguely stated that the disconnected connection was not supplying electricity to the entire property in question to one of the floors in the property. In the written statement of the defendant, it is averred that after the transfer of dues, vide order dated 04.12.2015, the plaintiff had approached the defendant for quashing the bill in question and for re-inspection of the property in question and had made a representation stating that there were seven other users in the same property and for issuance of the bill in question on pro-rata Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:21:48 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.25/35 basis. The defendant has placed on record copy of the said representation as Exhibit DW-2/6, which has not been disputed by the plaintiff. Further, it is averred in the written statement of the defendant that, on the said representation, the property in question was inspected again and it was again found that the disconnected connection was supplying electricity to the suit property (second floor of the property in question).
24) DW-2 in his affidavit, Exhibit DW-2/A, has reiterated the said averments, however, the defendant has not filed any documentary evidence in support thereof. There is no official record filed by the defendant regarding the subsequent inspection that was carried out at the property in question after receipt of the representation made by the plaintiff. The defendant has filed a copy of the inspection report dated 22.02.2016, in respect of the inspection stated to be carried out by them after the receipt of summons in the present suit, which has been placed on record as Exhibit DW-2/10. Amongst other details, the said inspection report mentions that according to the neighbors, Dayawanti was living at the second floor. The said inspection report, Exhibit DW-2/10, has not been formally proved by the defendant. Further, it is not even the case of the defendant that this was the same inspection that was carried out by the defendant after receipt of the representation of the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to show that the disconnected connection was supplying electricity to the suit property (second floor of the property in question). In fact, the defendant has failed to show the specific portion/area of the property in question to which the disconnected electricity was supplying electricity. If it is not known to which portion/floor/specific premises of the Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:21:54 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.26/35 property in question, the disconnected connection was supplying electricity, then the question is how the pending dues of the disconnected connection under Regulation 49 of the Supply Code could have been transferred to the 'same/such premises' (i.e., the first and second floor of the property in question).
25) The second objection raised by the plaintiff with respect to the bill in question and regarding the transfer of the pending dues to the suit property is that there were seven other electricity meters in the property in question and despite which he had been burdened with the payment of the pending dues. The case of the defendant in their written statement is that on re-inspection, it was found that the disconnected connection was supplying electricity to the second floor and that the occupant and user of electricity at the first floor and the second floor was the same, thus, the dues were transferred proportionately to the first and second floor of the property in question. Further, it is stated that the other six meters on which the transfer had been sought, were on the ground floor of the property in question and were being used for commercial purposes and they had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected connection in the year 2011. Further, it is the case of the defendant that there was one electricity meter in the name of Rahul Verma, which was installed after the disconnection of the disconnected connection, however, this meter was on the ground floor. It does not seem to be disputed that there were seven other meters in the property in question. DW-2 in his affidavit, Exhibit DW-2/A, has reiterated the said averments SALONI that these Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:22:01 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.27/35 other meters were installed at the ground floor and were for commercial purposes and that they had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected meter. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not transferred the pending dues to those meters in the property in question, which they claim were for commercial purposes, however, no such distinction has been made in Regulation 49 of the Supply Code. The defendant has not brought to the notice of this Court any other Regulation of the Supply Code or any provision of the Electricity Act, as per which the pending dues of a connection for domestic purpose could be recovered or transferred to a subsequent live connection in respect of the same premises only if this subsequent connection was for domestic purposes.
26) Further, DW-2 has stated in Exhibit DW-2/A that one meter was in the name of Rahul Verma, which had been installed at the ground floor after the disconnection of the disconnected connection. Neither DW-1 nor DW-2 have placed on record any documentary evidence in proof thereof. It is reiterated that there is no official record/report placed on record by the defendant regarding this re- inspection that was carried out at the property in question after receipt of the representation of the plaintiff.
27) Further, DW-2 in his affidavit Exhibit DW-2/A has stated that on re-inspection, it was informed that the occupier and user of the electricity at the first and second floor is the same, thus, the pending dues were transferred proportionately to the first and second floor. It is not disputed that the plaintiff, Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.28/35 18:22:08 +0530 occupier of the suit property (i.e., second floor of the property in question), and brother of the plaintiff, the occupier of the first floor of the property, are brothers. There is no oral or documentary proof to show that the plaintiff and his brother were residing in the property in question as a joint family and/or using the first and second floor of the property in question as a joint property. Even assuming that they were using the said two floors as joint property, however, admittedly, both floors had a separate electricity connection supplying electricity to their respective portions. Further, it is the own case of the defendant that the disconnected connection had been supplying electricity to the second floor, then how could the defendant decide to split the pending dues proportionately to the first and the second floor of the property in question. This act of the defendant is contrary to Regulation 49 of the Supply Code. The defendant has failed to bring forth to the attention of this court any other Regulation or provision of the Electricity Act, which empowered the defendant act in this manner.
28) The defendant has gone on to state in the written statement that after the inspection conducted at the property in question, notices dated 11.05.2015 had been issued to the said registered consumers of the live connections asking them to stop supply of electricity through their live connections to the portion of the premises (in respect of the disconnected connection). The defendant claims that the said notices had been served upon them, and they were given an opportunity of personal hearing, however, despite service the said opportunity was not availed by the said registered consumers. Further, it is submitted that the Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.29/35 18:22:15 +0530 defendant had again issued show cause notices dated 16.10.2015 to the said registered consumers, however, despite service, they had not availed the opportunity of personal hearing and eventually after due approvals, the dues were transferred equally amounting to Rs. 22,996/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six Only) to both the said registered consumers of the live connections. The plaintiff has denied receipt of the said notices dated 11.05.2015 and 16.10.2015, which in turn has been denied by the defendant on the plea that the plaintiff had been regularly receiving the electricity bills and, therefore, he must have received the said notices.
29) With respect to the mode of service of notices issued by the defendant, the Regulation 68 of the Supply Code specifically provides that any notice, including notice under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, issued to a consumer by the licensee shall be deemed served, if the notice is delivered either by hand to the consumer at the address notified to the licensee or by way of registered post at the correct postal address of the addressee or if it is affixed at a conspicuous part of the premises and photographed in case there is no person to whom the notice can with reasonable diligence be delivered. The defendant has not filed copy of the said notice dated 11.05.2015, however, has placed on record copy of the show cause notice dated 16.10.2015 as Exhibit DW-2/1. The bar code and number of the speed post is stated to be mentioned on the said notice by which the defendant claims to have sent the said notice to the plaintiff.
Evidently, the said notice, Exhibit DW-2/1, had not been served upon the plaintiff by any of the said approved modes provided in Regulation 68 of the Supply Code. The defendant Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:22:21 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.30/35 has placed on record the speaking order dated 04.12.2015 as Exhibit DW-2/2 (OSR) pursuant to which the dues of Rs. 22,997/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Seven Only) had been transferred. The said speaking order is addressed to Kanta Devi and not to the plaintiff and it mentions the dues to be transferred to the electricity connection bearing CA no. 100752365. The defendant has not placed on record the copy of the speaking order by which the dues had been transferred to the electricity connection bearing CA no. 150234056 in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be inferred that the defendant without having issued any notices to the plaintiff had transferred the previous dues of the disconnected connection to the plaintiff. Without having been given an opportunity of being heard or without having disclosed the case of the defendant to the registered consumers, the passing of the said speaking order dated 04.12.2015 or transferring of the dues is prima facie illegal. The defendant has placed reliance upon the affidavit-cum-undertaking furnished by the plaintiff (part of Exhibit DW-2/8) to fix the liability on the plaintiff of the transferred dues. If the transfer of the dues is itself illegal, an undertaking given by the plaintiff/consumer to pay all pending dues would not make it legal/permissible.
30) From the above, it is evident that the defendant has failed to show that the 'premises/portion/floor' of the property in question to which the disconnected connection was previously supplying electricity and the same premises that was being supplied electricity through live connections. Thus, it is stated that the circumstances as required for invoking Regulation 49 of the Supply Code did not exist and that the defendant hadSALONI illegally Digitally signed by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 18:22:27 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.31/35 transferred pending dues (of the disconnected connection) to the plaintiff without following the prescribed procedure. If the transfer of the dues to the plaintiff was itself illegal, the defendant could not have issued the bill in question raising demand for the said dues as other charges. Therefore, the bill in question raised by the defendant is illegal.
31) The plaintiff has also challenged the bill in question as being time barred. In this case, the defendant is stated to have transferred the previous dues to the plaintiff and his brother proportionately, vide the speaking order dated 04.12.2015 and, thereafter, had issued the bill in question including the other charges of Rs. 22,996/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six Only). It is the case of the defendant that the connection in the name of the plaintiff had been disconnected in April 2016. The defendant in the written statement has alleged that despite repeated requests the plaintiff failed to pay the transferred dues and the regular dues and under such circumstances, the defendant was constrained to disconnect the electricity supply/connection of the plaintiff. The defendant has not filed any document to prove the manner of said disconnection, however, it is admitted by the plaintiff that his electricity connection was disconnected in April, 2016. Regulation 49 (ii) of the Supply Code specifically provides that in case of non-payment of the transferred dues, the same would be dealt as per Regulation 49 (i) of the said Code i.e., by following Section 56 of the Electricity Act. Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act provides that where a person neglects to pay any charge for the electricity or any other sum (other than a charge for Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:22:34 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.32/35 electricity) due from him, the licensee may, after giving notice in writing of not less than fifteen days, disconnect the electricity supply. Section 56 (1) of the said Act clearly mandates the licensee to give prior written notice to such person before disconnection of the electricity supply for recovery of the dues of the consumer. In the present case, no such notice seems to have issued by the defendant to the plaintiff prior to the disconnection of his electricity supply. Therefore, without compliance of Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, the disconnection of the plaintiff's electricity supply towards recovery of the transferred dues or regular dues (if any) would be illegal. Further, the defendant's action of disconnection of the plaintiff's electricity supply could be hit by limitation under Section 56 (2) of the said Act.
32) The Hon'ble SC in KC Ninan's case (supra), while interpreting Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, has clarified that 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. Further, the Hon'ble SC in the said case has held that the limitation of two years provided in Section 56 (2) of the said Act is for recovery of dues by the licensee through the means of disconnecting electrical supply unless, the sum, which was first due, has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. The question of limitation in the context of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act was not framed as an issue in the present suit prior to commencement of trial. Even otherwise, determination of the issue of limitation involves disputed facts such as the date on Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.20 18:22:40 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.33/35 which the 'sum' became first due, the date on which the previous pending dues in respect of the premises was found, the date on which the alleged fraud by the official of defendant was discovered etc., which have not been per se proved by either of the parties for the purposes of limitation. Therefore, the question of limitation in the context of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act cannot be decided by this Court.
The bill in question has been already held to be illegal. Accordingly, the first issue is decided in the affirmative.
33) Issue no. 2: - The relief of mandatory injunction has already been granted in favour of the plaintiff at the interim stage of the present proceedings. As the bill in question is illegal, the disconnection of the electricity supply by the defendant is also held to be illegal. The interim order dated 11.04.2016 is hereby confirmed with direction to the defendant to restore the electricity connection of the suit property, if not already done so, subject to the plaintiff fulfilling all the commercial formalities in this regard as per the applicable electricity laws/regulations. Accordingly, the second issue is also decided in the affirmative.
34) Issue no. 3: - Next, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of permanent injunction of restraining the defendant from raising the above said illegal and unwarranted charges in future upon the electricity connection of the plaintiff and from disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises of the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff is attempting to obtain an all-purpose remedy in respect of any action to be taken in future by the defendant in respect of the Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH 18:22:47 Date: 2024.07.20 +0530 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.34/35 electricity connection in the suit property, which is not permissible. The plaintiff does not have an unconditional or absolute right against disconnection of his electricity supply or against recovery of charges in accordance with the applicable electricity laws. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the said reliefs of permanent injunction in his favour. Accordingly, the second issue is answered in the negative.
35) Decision: - All issues framed by this Court have been decided. In view thereof, the bill in question is hereby declared as illegal. The present suit stands partly decreed without costs to either of the parties. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by SALONI SALONI SINGH Pronounced in Open Court SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 on July 20, 2024 18:22:55 +0530 (SALONI SINGH) Senior Civil Judge-cum RC KKD/SHD/DELHI/20.07.2024 C.S. No. 10174/16 Pg No.35/35