Delhi District Court
Pavitra Mansion Welfare Society ( ... vs Delhi Vidhyut Board on 19 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL05 TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI
Suit No.132/2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Pavitra Mansion Welfare Society ( Regd.)
D15, South Exten. PartII,
New Delhi49
through its president Sh. R.L. Moria.
2. Sh. Kailash Nath Aggarwal
3. Sh. Kanwal Nath
Both sons of Sh. Ram Nath Aggarwal
D15, Sought Exten. Part II,
New Delhi110049 .....Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Delhi Vidhyut Board
Through its General Manager,
Shakti Sadan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
2. The Asstt. Engineer ( Zone1603),
Delhi Vidhyut Board, DVB Building,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
3. A.F.O.,
DVB, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi. ....defendants
Date of Institution: 01.11.2000
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 04.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 19.07.2014
Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 1 of 21
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are that plaintiff No. 2 & 3 are regd. consumer of electricity connection K. Nos. 703 1254558, 7031254574, 1254566 & 265342. They are also owner of another connection No. 6929638 in the name of Sh. S.K. Sandhu. All these meter are installed at D15, South Extension Part II, New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 1 is the regd. society under whom all the affairs of property No. D15 are running being authorized by the plaintiff No. 2 &3. It is further submitted that plaintiffs are consuming the electricity supply in the aforesaid property since the date of installation of the aforesaid K Nos and are paying the electricity bills regularly. It is further submitted that all of a sudden, the plaintiffs received a notice dt. 21031996 from the defendant No. 2 for disconnection of electric connections on the ground of misuse of load due to unauthorized construction in the said premises. Plaintiffs duly sent representation to defendant No. 1 and 2, but no effect. It is further submitted that the defendant No. 3 sent bills including arrears as well as tariff revision bills charging excessive amount. The bill with the due date as 29031996 with respect to K Nos. 703 Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 2 of 21 1254574 as Tariff revised bill for Rs. 40,806/ without any justification. The meter No. 9211976 of K. No. 7031254566 was replaced being faulty and the total meter reading upto 26031996 was 3594 units. But the defendant no. 3 sent the bills for Rs. 20,016/ with due date as 29031996 with current reading as 28510 units i.e. totally beyond imagination. The plaintiff sent representation to defendant No. 3 but to no effect. It is further submitted that the demand of the defendants are illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the Delhi Electricity Act.
3. It is further submitted that since the defendants were threatening to disconnect the electricity supply, hence the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction No. 238/1996 and vide order dt. 02041996 the court directed to defendant not to disconnect the electricity supply till the disposal of that suit. Vide order dt. 06051996, the Ld. Civil Judge restrained the defendants from disconnecting any connection of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid premises against the bill in question in the month of April,1996 subject to the plaintiffs depositing 40 % of the amount of above said impugned demand and also directing the defendants that they shall not add this stayed amount in future till the disposal of the suit. But the defendants did not do so and continued to add the stayed amount and not adjusting the said amount. It is further submitted vide order dt. 03091998 the hon'ble Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 3 of 21 court directed the plaintiff to appear before AFO on 10021998 and concerned officer was directed to hear to the plaintiff and consider the representation of the plaintiff. But instead of given proper hearing the defendant raised high amount of Rs. 91,091,93. A contempt application in this regard was also filed against the defendant. It is further submitted that official of the defendants took out two meters No. 976 and 120 without informing the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiff made representation to the chairman of the DVB and director of the Vigilance of DVB but the plaintiff have been suggesting to get the meters tested in a laboratory. It is further submitted that on 11012000 three bills No. 53584, 53585 and 53586 against meter No. 9307132 and meter No. 9307120 and 9211976 amounting to Rs. 7,00,403.50 were handed over to the plaintiffs without mentioning the user name on the Bill No. 53885 and 53886. Vide letter dt. 14012000 the plaintiff requested the defendants to provide users list to examine the above bills as the load on these meters was always within the sanctioned limit of13 KW and complained to these authorities about the high handedness and illegal act on the part of their staff. To the surprise of plaintiffs on 20012000 Mr. Thukral and Mr. Rajinder Singh out of their vengeance visited the premises of the plaintiff and ordered for removal of the entire connections from the building. Despite the Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 4 of 21 request of plaintiffs and order of the court, they disconnected the connection. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants and on the order of the court the official of the defendants restored the electricity after 48 hours. It is further submitted that as per directions of the court, the president of the plaintiff No. 1 visited the office of defendant on 15022000, where he was supplied copies of inspection reports of the three meters in question along with the reports of meter testing department and was told that the glass of two meters were refixed as stated in MTD report and alleging that it was a theft case. It is further submitted hat a representation dt. 21022000 was sent to XEN ( D) with a request to allow XX of Delhi Vidyut Board Raid party i.e. The inspection reports and the report of meter testing Department of the Raid Party. The defendant sent a letter dt. 1803 2000 alleging that the representation of the plaintiff were duly considered and were found unsatisfactory and claimed the payment of bill No. 16740 in the sum of Rs. 3,35,871.70, bill No. 16741 in the sum of Rs. 4,22,937/ and Bill No. 16742 in the sum of Rs. 5,91,919/ payable by 25032000 without giving any opportunity to be heard. In the mean time the electricity from the meter was again disconnected. On the application of the plaintiffs under order 39 rule 2A CPC, the court directed the defendants to restore the electricity Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 5 of 21 and directed to grant personal hearing and to pass speaking order within three weeks from 14072000. It is further submitted that Sh.Chander Pal , Executive Engineer ( D) , R.K.Puram passed an order dt. 15092000 and observed that the finding of the Enforcement Department are in order and the bills assessed for FAE as per the pattern of the DVB required to be payable by the User/Consumers beside observing then the actual consumption is quite inconsistent and low as compared to the connected loan based assessed consumption taken together with the observation of the MTD.
4. It is further submitted that the said order passed by the officials of the defendants is mindless, vindicative and illegal as no bill in regard to K No. 365342 has been raised by the defendant. It is further submitted that order of the competent authority dt. 16111999/05 012000 was handed over to the plaintiffs only on 10042000. But the proceedings before the ZEN ( ENF) and ZEN (D) were never provided to the plaintiff despite letter dt. 11042000 addressed to the defendant. It is further submitted that in the inspection report dt. 26061999 the remarks have been given as " Old bills shown" . The inspection reports and MTD report were not handed over tot he plaintiff as per rules as the same has to be handed over at the spot of inspection. It is falsely written on the inspection report that : Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 6 of 21
Refused to Sign" It is further submitted that the official of the defendant illegally removed two meters without making any documentation with ulterior motive to extract bribe and when the demand of the officials were not met whopping bills No. 53884, 53885 and 53886 amounting to Rs. approxi. 11 lacs were raised on plaintiffs. It is further submitted that as per direction of the court, a submission dt. 25072000 was filed by the plaintiff with detailed statement and relevant documents, but no attention has been paid by the defendants while passing order. The XEN ( D) did not discuss the plaintiff's stand. It is further submitted that the XEN ( D) tried to confuse the issue by given misleading details. The average recorded consumption has been taken at his whim and fancy. At i) regarding meter K No. 365342, the period is taken from April, 1993,At ii) against meter K No. 1254566 the period has been taken from march, 97 and at iii) against meter K No. 9307132, the period is taken from August, 1996. The plaintiff requested the defendants to get the above three meter got tested in a laboratory to establish the truth.
5. It is further submitted that the part B i) the average recorded consumption has been shown as 820 U/M when no bills and deviation w.r. to connect load has been shown as 2706. The defendants cannot book this meter under FAE unless the bill/unit Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 7 of 21 consumed each month is provided to the plaintiff. Percentage in b ii) and B iii) is also shown wrongly. In place of 57 %, 181% 271% 182 % , and 137 % it is shown 43 %, 82 % , 61 %, 82 % and 137 %. The average recorded consumption is also incorrect at B ii) . It is shown 172 B instead of 2715 units and at B iii) it is shown as 113 B unit in place of 1874 and 858 units in place of 1808 units/M. Further at part B iii) against meter K No. 9307132, the remarks that "meter glass found cracked" have been given. It is further submitted that the meter is functioning normal but there was remarks given on the bill as "meter glass crack" in 1996. It is on record that since 1996 plaintiffs have been constantly taking up the matter with the defendants, but nothing was done for its replacement. It is further submitted that XEN ( D) in his order has incorrectly stated that Mr. D.R. Thukral, A.E. Zone ( 1603) and represented the defendants during the proceedings. It is further submitted that the order of XEN ( ENF) dt. 05012000 and proceedings before him cannot be termed as fair one.
6. It is further submitted that the order dt. 10092000 of ER Chander Pal, XEN ( D) , RKP is absolutely illegal and invalid and against the laws of electricity and the same cannot be formed the basis of the bills, accordingly the said order is illegal, unenforceable in law and the same is liable to be declared as illegal, invalid and inoperative. It Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 8 of 21 is further submitted that on the basis of said illegal order dt. 1009 2000, the officials of the defendants have again started threatening to raise exorbitant and to disconnect the electricity from the meter of the plaintiff. Hence the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
7. In their WS the defendants have contended that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action. No notice was served by the plaintiff before filling of the present suit. The plaintiff has also suppressed the material facts. It is further submitted that an inspection was carried out by the joint team on 26061999 and so many irregularities were found at the premises of the plaintiff. The connection load was found at 26.824 KW on K. No. 1256566, 21.370 KW on K No. 1365342 and 8.150 KW on K No. 1254558. The FAE against all the three connection was booked by the inspection team. Further the defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff which are made in his plaint and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
8. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. In his replication the plaintiff has reaffirmed the contents in the plaint and denied all the allegation made by the defendant in their written statement and further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
9. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 9 of 21 order dt. 13012004.
i) Whether the alleged inspection dt. 26061999 is valid and correct? If so, its effect? OPD
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
iv) Relief.
10. To prove his case plaintiff has examined Sh. R.L. Moriya as PW1 , who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW/A . In his affidavit PW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and relied upon the document:
i) Letter dt. 17022000, 04032000, 29032000, 04052000 Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/4.
ii) Three Bill dt. 25032000 are Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/7. Iii) Certain previous bill Ex.PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/18.
iv) Letter dt. 21032000 is Ex. PW1/19.
v) Speaking order dt. 15092000 is Ex. PW1/20. Vi) Certified copy of order dt. 02041996 and 06051996 are Ex. P/W1/21 and PW1/22.
Vii) Carbon copy of inspection record No. 23444, 14714 14715 all dt. 260699 is Ex.PW1/23 & PW1/24 colly.
Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 10 of 21 Viii) Copy of letter dt. 05071999, 14071999 are Ex.PW1/25 & 26.
ix) Copy of letter dt. 30081999 is Ex.PW1/27.
x) Copy of letter dt. , 06091999 and postal receipt and AD card are Ex. PW1/28 (1) to PW1/28 ( 3).
xi) copy of letter dt. 06012000, postal receipt and AD card are Ex. PW1/29 (1) to PW1/29 (5)
xii) Letter dt. 14012000 sent to XEN (D) is Ex. PW1/30. Xiii) Certified copy of statement and order dt. 10022000 is Ex. PW1/31.
Xiv) Copy of representation dt. 18022000 is Ex. PW1/32.
xv) Copy of letter dt. 03032000 sent to Director Vigilance DVB is Ex. PW1/33.
Xvi) Copy of letter dt. 18032000 sent by ER. D.R. Thukral to Sh. Kailash Nath and Kanwal Nath is Ex. PW1/34.
Xvii) Certified copy of order dt. 14072000 on application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 A CPC is Ex. PW1/35 Xviii) Copy of order dt. 30082000 passed by XEN D is Ex. PW1/36. Xix) Copy of letter dt. 25072000 sent to XEN D is Ex. PW1/37.
11. Further the plaintiff has examined Sh. O.P. Sharma, Vasudev Sharma as PW2 & PW3. They have also filed their evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW/B and PW/C. PW2 relied upon the document Ex.PW2/1.
Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 11 of 21 All the plaintiff's witnesses were also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants.
12. On the other hand the defendants has examined Sh. Khushal Singh, Chander Pal , Sh.V.P. Singh as DW1, DW2 & DW3. They have filed their evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A, DW2/A, DW3/A. In his affidavit the DW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in WS and relied upon the document already Ex. PW1/24 colly which is inspection record dt. 26061999. The PW2 relied upon the documents Ex. DW2/1( PW1/27 colly) which is speaking order dt. 15092000. The DW3 relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/23 which is MTD report.
All the defendant's witnesses were also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff
13. I have heard Ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the record & gone through the relevant provision of law.
14.My issue wise finding is as under:
15. Issue No. 1. Whether the alleged inspection dt. 26061999 is valid and correct? If so, its effect? OPD Issue No. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP Issue No. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 12 of 21 Issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 being interrelated are being taken up and decided together.
Before delving on the rival contentions of the parties it is relevant to discuss the evidence led by the parties.
16.PW1 Sh. RL Moriya stated in his crossexamination that there are five connections installed at the premises D15 NDSA Part2 New Delhi49. Inspection was carried out on 26.6.1999. At the time of inspection he was not present and came to know about it later on. He was told that two electric meters were taken away by DVB official and no receipt was given for the seizure of those meters. He denied that no written complaint was given to the department. No show cause notice was issued by the Department. The personal hearing given by the Enforcement Department was attended by Major O.P. Sharma, State Manager of the society. Copy of load report and MTD report were not received by him but were given to him at the personal hearing before the Executive Engineer upon the directions of the court. He denied that plaintiff was using excess load. He denied that the meter was tempered with.
17.PW2 Major O.P. Sharma stated in his crossexamination that he has been working with the plaintiff society since 1995 as State Manager. His duties are to look after the property and welfare of the premises. He denied that the department was not harassing the Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 13 of 21 plaintiff and stated that written representations were given to the department for the harassment caused. He stated that he was present at the time of inspection. No show cause notice was issued by the department. He appeared for the personal hearing before the Enforcement Department.
18.PW3 Sh. Vasudev Sharma stated in his crossexamination that he has been working as a Guard with the plaintiff since 1995 and use to watch the property as well as the electricity meters.
19.DW1 SH. Khushal Singh stated in his crossexamination that the inspection was conduced on 26.06.1999. On the said date he was working as Inspector in EnforcementII. He had checked the connected load alongwith Sh. S.R. Verma and Sh. G.P. Chauhan, Members of the Inspection team. He stated that he does not remember that whether the said inspection was carried out in a routine manner or on some complaint. The connected load was checked on the basis of the rating capacity of the machines and no other scientific methods was adopted for checking the connected load. All five meters were checked but action was taken against three meters which was suspected to be defective. He did not check the meter but had only signed the MTD report being the member of the inspection team. He did not know the defect in the meters. FAE has been booked on the basis of tampered meter but not because Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 14 of 21 of excess connected load. He does not remember who was present at the site at the time of inspection. The copy of inspection report was not accepted by any representative of plaintiff.
20.DW2. Sh. Chander Pal stated in his crossexamination that he was not the member of the inspection team and had not seen the factual position at site. Speaking order was passed on the basis of documentary evidences and presentations by the parties. Copies of documents were supplied to Sh. Moriya on 15.02.2000. He denied that Sh. R.L. Moriya and Sh. B.R. Thukral were not present at the time of passing of the speaking order. The FAE was booked against three connections.
21.DW3. Sh. V.P. Singh stated in his crossexamination he was the member of inspection team and was working at Superintendent Tech at the relevant time. He could not state what was the category of the connections and how much of the sanctioned loan against each connection. He had checked all the five meters on 26.06.1999. Irregularities was founded in three meters as mentioned in MTD report dated 26.06.1999. The half seals, hollow gram seal rivets of the meter in question of intact and ok except the meter glass was found through the film could be inserted in the cavity between the meter glass and cover. No film was found inserted in the cavity between the meter glass and cover when the meter was checked. Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 15 of 21 The meter was recording consumption at the time of inspection. He was not present at the time of personal hearing. He had no knowledge regarding installation of sub meter.
22.The burden to prove that the inspection report dated 26061999 is valid and correct was on the defendant. Before discussing the said report it is essential that the law in this regard is discussed. In Narinder Aggarwal vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd decided on 18 March, 2011 By Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 1789/2011, it was held as under regarding dishonest abstraction of electricity:
17. This Court has in:
(a) Udham Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 136 (2007) DLT 500.
(b) Jagdish Narayan Vs. NDPL 140 (2007) DLT 307.
(c) J.K. Steelomelt (P) Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 563.
held that before arriving at a finding of DAE, the Assessing Officer is required to observe the consumption pattern of the consumer and in the absence of DAE having been established from the consumption pattern, no case for DAE can be made out. It was further held that when the meter is not checked for accuracy, the finding of the DAE is flawed. The Courts have also held that mens rea or intention of the consumer to dishonestly abstract electricity must be proved conclusively to bring home the charge of DAE. It was further held that external manifestation of tampering can only raise Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 16 of 21 a suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. This Court in Harvinder Motors Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. AIR 2007 Delhi 85 further held that the proceedings for DAE have adverse consequences; the consumer is held liable to pay statutorily determined amount--the monetary liabilities are stiff. In the circumstances it was held that without putting the brief description of the consumption pattern to the consumer, there could be no proper hearing or compliance of principles of natural justice.
23.In J.K. Steelomelt (P) Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 563, it was held as under:
21. This Court has in a series of decisions inUdham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.136 (2007) DLT 500, Col. R.K. Nayyar v. BSES(Judgment dated 18.4.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 2904 of 2005) and Smt. Jagdish Narayan v. NDPL (Judgment dated 18.4.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 10287 of 2005 etc.) interpreted the provisions of Section 135 of the Act read with the DERC Regulations. The relevant passages of the last mentioned judgment in Jagdish Narayan reads as under:
23. What is central to the definition of theft under Section 135 of the Act, which according to the respondent covers DAE as well is the element of 'dishonesty'. Therefore the means read or the intention of the consumer to dishonestly abstract electricity must be proved "conclusively"
to bring home the charge of DAE. Therefore the requirement of "conclusive evidence" in terms of Regulation 25 (iii) is consistent with the statutory mandate of Section 135(1). That can be established only by showing that the consumer was responsible Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 17 of 21 for tampering the meter by some visible means. The external manifestations of tampering, as has been found in the inspections conducted in the present cases, can only raise a suspicion of DAE. That suspicion will have to be made good by some tangible evidence of physical means of tampering before the presumption can be drawn that it was the consumer who tampered the meter.
24. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagannath Singh v. B.S. Ramaswamy is illustrative although there the Court was concerned with a criminal conviction for the offence of theft of electricity under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The approach to the requirement of proof of dishonest abstraction of energy is nevertheless relevant for the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the existence of artificial means for abstracting energy can only give rise to a presumption that there had been a dishonest abstraction. The supplier would still have to show that the consumer is responsible for such tampering. In the said case, it was contended that the existence of an open stud hole on the meter was sufficient proof that dishonest abstraction of energy had taken place. In answer to that contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "A meter with an exposed stud hole, without more, is not a perfected instrument for unauthorized taking of energy, and cannot be regarded as an artificial means of its abstraction. To make it such an artificial means, the tampering must go further, and the meter must be converted into an instrument for recording less than the units actually passing through it. A check meter affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 18 of 21 abstraction of the unrecorded energy. To bring home the charge under Section 39, the prosecution must also prove that the consumer is responsible for the tampering. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must establish beyond doubt that the consumer is guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy."
25. Applying the above test, it has to be held that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tampering together with the analysis of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible evidence must be shown to exist. An accu check meter can be deployed to find out if the meter is in fact recording lesser units. The analysis of the consumption pattern in terms of the Regulation 26 (ii) is merely corroborative and not by itself substantive evidence of DAE. The decision of this Court in Udham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.-136 (2007) DLT 500 is to the same effect. In fact, the formula is applied in terms of Regulation 25 (iv) read with 26 (ii) only for determining the penalty payable by the consumer once a case of either direct theft or DAE has been made out. The penalty formula cannot itself supply the proof of DAE or theft.
22.In reiteration of the above judgments, it is held that in order to establish DAE through conclusive evidence, it is incumbent on the respondent to show, not merely with the reference to the consumption pattern, but by some other tangible evidence that there has been the tampering with or access by the petitioner to the internal mechanism of the meter in a manner that would slow down the consumption. This could be, for instance, in the form of an accu-chek instrument being used to detect if the meter was recording lesser Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 19 of 21 consumption than it should.
24.From the abovediscussed judgments it is manifest that to prove dishonest or fraudulent abstraction of electricity it is essential for the defendant to show, (i) the consumption pattern of the consumer (ii) some tangible evidence that there has been the tampering with or access by the plaintiff to the internal mechanism of the meter in a manner that would slow down the consumption. This could be, for instance, in the form of an accu chek instrument being used to detect if the meter was recording lesser consumption than it should. In the instant case, the defendant witness DW1 has stated in his crossexamination that no instrument was used to check the meters. Clearly, the defendant did not take the assistance of accuchek instrument, which affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. Thus, clearly, the defendants have failed to prove the said inspection report. On the basis of the judgments mentioned and the discussions made above, clearly, the impugned speaking order dated 10/9/2000, is declared unsustainable in law and is accordingly declared illegal.
25. Once the inspection report dated 26061999 has remained Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 20 of 21 unproved and the order dated 10/9/2000 has been declared as illegal then clearly the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. These issues are decided accordingly.
26.Relief:
In view of the foregoing discussion, a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and the speaking order dated 10/9/2000, is declared unsustainable in law and is accordingly declared illegal.
The decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity of the plaintiffs from the meters in question in respect of property bearing No. D15, South Extension PartII, New Delhi110049. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced & signed in the ( Snigdha Sarvaria) open court on 19.07.2014 Civil Judge/Central05/Delhi Suit No. 132/2014 Page No. 21 of 21