BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Rajinder Kumar & Anr.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 2025, passed by the learned Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (“CGRF”) in C.G. No. 604/2024, titled as “Rajender Kumar Versus BSES Yamuna Power Limited”, wherein learned CGRF has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, and has directed the petitioner herein, to release new connection at the premises being H. No. 376, Old Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, applied by respondent no. 1, after completion of all the commercial formalities.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 is contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and electric supply) Regulations, 2010 and Electricity Act,

2003.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Schedule of Charges and Procedure (Sixth Amendment) Order, 2021, issued by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (“DERC”) and relies upon the following Clause: “xxx xxx xxx

(ii) The clause 5 of the Declaration of Annexure-I shall be substituted and read as under:

5. That the building has been constructed as per prevalent building Bye-Laws and the fire clearance certificate, if required, is available with the applicant. xxx xxx xxx”

4. By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the since property has been booked for unauthorized construction, therefore, the petitioner cannot grant any electricity connection. He, thus, submits that the learned CGRF has wrongly directed the petitioner herein to grant connection to the respondent no. 1 herein.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the learned CGRF to submit that there is a categorical finding by the learned CGRF that property Nos. H-376 and H-376A are different and distinct. Thus, he submits that since there is no unauthorized construction in his property, the petitioner ought to grant electricity connection to the property of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), submits that the position as regards the status of the property of respondent no. 1, is yet to be ascertained by respondent no. 2.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court notes that vide order dated 18th March, 2025, learned CGRF has given a finding in the following terms: “xxx xxx xxx

3. Counsel for the complainant in its rejoinder refuted the contentions of the respondent as averred in their reply and submitted that the applied address was never booked by MCD. Complainant stated that the subject premises are in use and occupation of the complainant, thus, no question of booking of property bearing no. H-376, Old Seemapuri, Delhi and property bearing no. H-376-A, Old Seemapuri, Delhi is distinct from the property bearing no. H-376, Old Seemapuri, Delhi. Complainant already has a temporary meter which was installed for construction. Complainant filed bill of temporary meter along with rejoinder.

4. During the hearing, OP was directed to produce K. No. file of the temporary connection CA No. 351402008 in the name of Mr. Rajender Kumar in which the address of the complainant is mentioned H-376, Old Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi-110095.

5. From the narration of facts and material placed before us we find that complainant applied for new electricity connection which OP rejected on pretext of MCD Objection as the premises booked due unauthorized construction. Regarding this objection of OP, that building is booked by MCD, in this regard, complainant stated that his premises is not booked by MCD and a temporary connection installed by respondent for construction. It is clear from the K. No. file complainant address is H-376 and booked property no. H-376-A are different.

6. Thus, the objection of OP is not justified and we cannot deprive the complainant of electricity. Therefore, OP is hereby directed to grant the application of the complainant for electricity connections in the applied premises. xxx xxx xxx”

8. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the learned CGRF has given a categorical finding that the address of respondent no. 1 herein is H-376, Old Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi, which is distinct from property bearing no. H-376-A.