1. The challenge in both these writ petitions is to a Notification dated 16th/19th May 2008 issued by the Department of Power, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD?) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Notification dated 20th February, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

2. By the said impugned Notification, the Lieutenant Governor („LG?) of the NCT of Delhi issued directions, in public interest, to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commissioner, as under: “(1) direct the Discoms to write off the principal dues against sale of power during DESU/DVB period in respect of the private electricity consumers and to waive off their late payment surcharge as well pertaining to that period only, except the cases under litigation at any forum and at any level. (2) direct the Discoms not to raise any bill on the private electricity consumers pertaining to sale of power in DESU/DVB period excluding the cases under litigation at any forum at any level. (3) direct the Discoms to implement the above decisions (1) & (2) from the next immediate billing cycle.”

3. The facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8568 of 2009 are that the Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Modelama Exports, New Delhi. He was allotted a power connection by the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board („DVB?). It is stated that till July 1995, DVB was raising bills on the basis of the consumption of electricity as recorded in the meter installed in the Petitioner?s premises. After July 1995, the DVB raised bills including certain amounts under the heading “Misuse/excess charges.” Aggrieved by the said bills, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1104 of 1998 in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, DVB withdrew the LIP tariff and LPF surcharge on 30th June 1999. Consequently, the Petitioner?s bills were revised and the writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 9th August 2000. The Petitioner states that he was surprised to receive another bill dated 25th February 2002 for a sum of Rs. 32,45,127.55 as current demand against the actual consumption of 20430 units for the period from 8th August 1989 to 28th July 1994. The Petitioner states that this demand was not raised earlier and not mentioned by the DVB during the pendency of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1104 of 1998.

4. Being aggrieved by the said bill, the Petitioner filed Suit No. 133 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. An order dated 2nd April 2003 was passed in an application filed in the said suit by the Petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC?) restraining the DVB from disconnecting the power supply of the Petitioner for non-payment of the said bill. By the same order, the learned Civil Judge granted the DVB liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice concerning the impugned bill and decide the matter afresh after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Rajat Wadhwa learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite the above order having been passed more than seven years ago, no show cause notice for a fresh hearing has been given to the Petitioner and the said interim injunction order continues till date. It is stated that during the pendency of the above suit, the impugned Notification came to be issued whereby the LG gave directions to the DVB in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

6. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that merely because he chose to challenge an illegal demand raised by the erstwhile DVB, which has now been substituted by the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited („BRPL?), he cannot be discriminated vis-à-vis other defaulters and must be extended the benefit of writing-off of the arrears. He points out that in the Petitioner?s case the demand was raised for the period from 8th August 1989 to 28th July 1994 and this demand was not raised till 2004. Therefore, even this claim should