( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the Respondents in each of them, i. e. the power distribution companies, are justified in clubbing the consumption against two or more separate electricity connections given to each of the Petitioners and thereby levying a higher rate of tariff. Background facts: Kolmet Builders

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the first petition by Kolmet Builders is that there are three separate electricity connections installed in No. 7b Pusa Road, delhi for non-domestic purposes. The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm of which Dr. Ashwani Mehta is a partner. It is carrying out the business of building construction and also running a nursing home under the name of the kolmet Hospital at 7b Pusa Road, New Delhi. Originally the sanctioned load for the three electricity connections was 8 KW, 18kw and 18 KW respectively.

2. 1 Under the VDS Scheme of 1995, the Petitioner applied to the erstwhile Delhi vidyut Board (DVB) for enhancement of the load from 8kw to 18. 350 KW, 18kw to 36 kw and 18kw to 37kw and for conversion of the category from domestic to commercial. The Petitioner submitted a certificate of registration for the nursing home, the sanctioned building plan and completed various formalities. Thereafter the category of the Petitioner?s connection was changed from domestic to non-domestic light (NDLT ). With effect from 19. 1. 1996 electricity bills were raised on the basis of the NDLT tariff.

2. 2 According to the Petitioner in July 2001, when the erstwhile DVB began raising bills on the basis of the domestic/dm category instead of the NDLT category, the Petitioner raised a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) which is stated to be pending.

2. 3 With the view to installing an additional load in the nursing home, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents for grant of mixed load high tension (MLHT) connection of 150 KW on 3. 3. 2002 and deposited the requisite processing fees. It is stated that that said application is pending with the Respondent.

2. 4 An inspection was carried out in the premises of the Petitioner on 20. 1. 2003 by the enforcement team of the Respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (BRPL) the successor-in-interest of the DVB. In respect of the three electricity connections, the connected load found against the sanctioned load was as under:

K. No. S. LOAD CONNECTED LOAD 160307 18. 35 KW ? 30. 640 KW 160220 37. 00 KW ? 73. 043 KW 160306 36. 00 KW ? 71. 323 KW TOTAL 91. 35 KW 175. 006 KW

2. 5 According to the Petitioner in preparing the inspection report the load of air-conditioners, Autoclaves, X-Ray Machines and Incubators were included. A show cause notice issued to the Petitioner to which it replied on 18. 12. 2003. A personal hearing was given on 5. 1. 2004 A Speaking Order dated 16. 1. 2004 was issued by the Respondent in which it was held that the status of separate distinct premises for the three separate connections sanctioned, had been ? altered unauthorisedly into unified premises where all the three connections are being used for the total load of 175. 006 KW for running the hospital?. It was accordingly concluded that the unauthorized unification of the premises had changed the category of connection from NDLT to MLHT (LT) which was a violation of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) Regulations, the Tariff Schedule and the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA ). Accordingly it was proposed to raise a bill on the Petitioner on the basis of the rates applicable to the MLHT (LT) category under the Tariff Schedule for the year 2003-04.

2. 6 Thereafter the Petitioner filed the present petition, challenging the speaking Order dated 16. 1. 2004 On 9. 2. 2004 while directing notice to issue in the writ petition, this Court directed that the Respondent would not recover from the Petitioner the arrears of the amount of MLHT for a period of six months prior to the inspection but that the