S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is running a small scale industry for manufacturing of automobile parts at premises No. 77 Maya Puri, Delhi and it has a sanctioned industrial power connection of 120 HP (89. 2 KWs) against K. No. 002-1316309 and 3 kw of industrial lighting against K. No. 1316317-IL. These electricity connections were granted to it by erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board ('dvb' ).

( 2 ) AN inspection was carried out by the DVB on 3. 4. 1989. The report noted that the connected load was 220. 25 HP against the sanctioned load of 120 HP and 2. 7 HP of industrial lighting. Further it was alleged that there was subletting to M/s. Okhla Small Scale Industries, a unit in the adjacent premises. On the basis of the said inspection reprot a letter dated 1. 6. 1989 was issued by the dvb to the petitioner levying a penalty for exceeding the load and for subletting.

( 3 ) THE petitioner disputed this liability by contending that Okhla Small scale Industries was a separate unit with a separate connection. The petitioner sought a fresh inspection and deposited the necessary charges. A second inspection took place on 25. 8. 1989. This time the inspection report showed the consumption in three distinct parts in respect of each separate connection and consumer. As far as the petitioner was concerned the connected load was shown as 105 HP. The connected load for Okhla Small Scale Industries was shown separately.

( 4 ) IN the meanwhile the petitioner filed a Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against the DVB for levying LIP tariff on the basis of the inspection report dated 3. 4. 1989, which subsequently stood annulled by the inspection report dated 25. 8. 1989. By an order dated 1. 6. 1990 the Civil Judge declined interim relief of restoration of electricity and noted that the electricity could be restored only upon deposit of the disputed amount of Rs. 45,201. 49 without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal being MCA No. 274/1990 which was allowed by the judgment dated 27. 3. 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge ('adj' ). The ADJ held that the disconnection was without justification and accordingly ordered reconnection by passing the following order:

"i, therefore, direct the respondent to restore the electricity of the appellant subject to the appellant's paying reconnection charges and depositing rs.

10,000/- with the respondent. This Rs. 10,000/- would be adjustable against the normal bill raised by the respondent at SIP rates without prejudice to the contention of the parties or the liability to pay charges at LIP rate. Appeal is accepted. "

( 5 ) MEANWHILE a third inspection of the premises took place on 26. 7. 1990. This inspection report also noted the consumption in respect of the petitioner, separately. It is claimed by the Respondents that this inspection also revealed that the connected load was found to be 222. 098 HP plus 15. 6 KW which was more than the sanctioned load.

( 6 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 27. 3. 1991 passed by the ADJ, the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000/- and the electricity supply was restored. The petitioner claimed that it had been regularly paying the bill at the SIP tariff. There was a fire in the factory on 31. 3. 1993 and on the advice of the Delhi Fire Service, the electricity supply was disconnected by the DVB from the feeding point. Thereafter, despite the petitioner making payment of the current charges, the dvb failed to restore the electricity. The petitioner's industrial activity thereafter came to a halt. Meanwhile, with the enactment of the Delhi electricity Reforms Act, 2000, the DVB came to be replaced by the BSES Rajdhani power Ltd.

( 7 ) THE petitioner applied on 24. 5. 2001 to the Permanent Lok Adalat ('pla') for restoration of the supply and withdrawal of LIP tariff which was proposed to be imposed. During the pendency of the proceedings before the PLA, pursuant to an order dated 25. 4. 2003, the petitioner was afforded a hearing