The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of electricity misuse and the importance of genuine evidence in disputing factual positions.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was running a 19-room hotel, known as Hotel President, at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The petitioner was sanctioned a load of 110 KW by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ('desu') a wing of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('mcd'), the respondent herein. With the unbundling of the DESU the respondent MCD has, by an order of this Court dated 10. 11. 2005, been substituted by the BSES Yamuna Power Limited.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's premises was inspected on 19. 7. 1990 by a joint inspection team of enforcement which found the following irregularities: ? (a) Large Industrial Power (LIP), since the connected load was found to be 169. 08 KW as against the sanctioned load of 110 KW. (b) Low Power Factor (LPF), the installed shunt capacitors of 3 x 8 KVAR + 15 kvar were of inadequate capacity vis-a-vis the connected load of 169. 08 KW. The required capacity of the shunt capacitor has to be 1/3rd of the connected load. (c) There was subletting on account of the connection being used by M/s. Bhai sunderdas and Sons Company (P) Ltd. , also in addition to the same connection being used for different floors of Hotel President. ?

( 3 ) THE copy of the inspection report (which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 'i' to this writ petition) was signed by the representative of the petitioner, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, as well as by each of the members of the inspection team. The remarks in the inspection report read: ?shunt capacitor 3 x 8 KVAR, 15kvar found installed (ii) There is (sic) two sources supply from different sources through change over switch which is duly sealed by MTD Department. ?

( 4 ) CONSEQUENT upon the above inspection, on 2. 9. 1992 a letter was addressed to the petitioner by DESU stating that misuse of electricity by the petitioner, as found during the inspection, would attract surcharge/higher tariff and further that ?unless and until sufficient evidence/proof to the satisfaction of DESU is made available to substantiate otherwise without prejudice to our right to take further action for disconnection of the supply under Clause 7 (2)/7 (4) and/or 7 (6) of the order ibid. ? The said letter further required the petitioner to remove the excess load and/or misuse, provide/maintain shunt capacitor of adequate capacity so as to keep the power factor not below. 85 lagging and bring down your load within the sanctioned limited. ? The petitioner replied to this letter dated 10. 9. 1992 denying both the misuse as well as the subletting. The petitioner further maintained that there was no excess load and that there was no change in the user.

( 5 ) ON 7. 10. 1992 the petitioner was issued a show cause notice for the levy of surcharge on account of load violation/misuse of supply/non-installation of shunt capacitor. Notice further stated that a bill would be raised w. e. f. July, 1989 by revising the applicable tariff.

( 6 ) AT this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 18. 12. 1992 challenging, inter alia, the said letter dated 2. 9. 1992 and notice dated 7. 10. 1992 issued to it by DESU. On 21. 12. 1992 this Court directed notice to issue in the writ petition and passed an interim order staying the disconnection of electricity at the petitioner's premises at 4/238, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi on the condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of rs. 80,000/- on or before 24. 12. 1992. Thereafter, numerous interim orders were passed permitting the petitioner to make ad hoc payments against the bills raised including misuser charges. On 5. 5. 1993 it was noticed by this Court that no reply had been filed by the respondent and a direction was given that ?henceforth the respondent shall not charge low tension charges, load violation charges and low power factor surcharge from the petitioner. ?

( 7 ) ON 29. 9. 1993 since no reply had yet been filed by the respondent, this court issued Rule and confirmed the interim orders made earlier. This Court further directed that ?hencef