The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of ownership/occupancy for a new electricity connection and the distributor's right to reject applications not in compliance with applicable regulations.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.9510/2015.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking an order for setting aside the rejection orders (for grant of electricity connection) dated 18.04.2013 and 25.02.2015 passed by respondent No.1. Further directions were sought seeking compensation @ Rs.1000.00 per day for the period of default by the respondent under Regulation 65 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code & Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter refered to as the ‘Regulations’).

3. Essentially the issue is that the appellant does not have an electricity connection at Flat No. VII/2, Delhi Transco Colony, Kilokari, New Delhi, Opp. Maharani Bagh, New Delhi (in short the ‘flat’). The appellant is said to have submitted an agreement/undertaking for a new connection on 11.03.2013 for domestic electricity supply at the flat but to no effect.

4. The appellant filed a complaint on 21.04.2014 before the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking an order for release of an electricity connection at the flat. The Commission heard the appellant and on 01.08.2014 dismissed the complaint of the appellant stating that to enable the respondent to release the new connection proof of ownership/allotment letter is required to be filed by the appellant and as needful was not done the application of the appellant has been rightly rejected.

5. In the meantime, the respondent booked the appellant for theft of electricity and an assessment bill of theft (direct theft) for Rs.2,09,167.00 was raised on the appellant. The respondent also filed a criminal complaint under Section 154 (3) read with Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for theft of electricity. As per the complaint, an inspection was carried out at the said flat on 13.03.2014 by a team of the respondent. During the inspection, the team observed that there was no meter installed at the site and that the users were found indulding in direct theft of electricity by illegal tapping from the main service cable to feed load directly. Necessary videography is said to have been made.

6. On 07.10.2014, Special Judge, Electricity, Saket, New Delhi took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the appellant. The appellant, thereafter filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this court for quashing of the summons and proceedings before the Special Judge, Electricity, Saket, New Delhi. It appears that thereafter the matter was sorted out between the parties and the theft bill raised by the respondent was settled for Rs.1,05,000.00, which amount was duly paid by the appellant. Thereafter the criminal complaint proceedings were disposed off accordingly.

7. The appellant thereafter applied for a new connection again and submitted a fresh set of documents. However, the application of the appellant was rejected vide impugned rejection letter dated 25.02.2015 for the reasons “NOC from Delhi Transco Ltd is required.”

8. The learned Single Judge noted that the appellant had failed to place on record any allotment letter or lease or licence agreement to show as to how he is in occupation of the said flat. Hence, the court held that the appellant is not entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction as electricity cannot be granted to a person who is in illegal and unauthorised occupation of a public/government property.

9. We have heard the Appellant who appears in person and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

10. In response to a query from the court as to how he has come in occupation of the flat in as much as the flat appears to belong to Transco, an undertaking of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi dealing with transmission of electricity in Delhi, the appellant stated that he was previously an employee of Transco and that now he has resigned and is practicing as an advocate in Delhi courts. He was allotted the flat then being an employ