Restoration of electricity supply must be maintained during ongoing property disputes, contingent on bill payments, without conferring additional rights to the petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Restoration of electricity supply - Appellant seeks restoration of electricity connection, which was disconnected based on claims from another party regarding unauthorized construction - Court emphasizes existing possession and prior electricity supply as key considerations. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Property Rights - Pending litigation - Court acknowledges ongoing disputes over property ownership and stipulates that any connection or disconnection of supply is subject to the outcome of those suits. (Paras 8, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner resides with elderly parents in the disputed property, has possessed it since 2007, and had previously maintained electricity supply until disconnected due to claims by another party regarding unauthorized construction.

Findings of Court:
Petition disposed of directing BSES-RPL to maintain electricity supply to existing meter subject to regular bill payments, pending resolution of ongoing appeals regarding property rights.

Issues: Main issues include the authority to disconnect electricity supply based on property disputes and the implications of pending litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the restoration of electricity supply must be maintained harmfully during litigation, emphasizing that no rights are conferred to the petitioner based on the existing situation, and restoration is contingent upon payment of bills.

Result: Petition disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks restoration of electricity supply. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 10)
2. ongoing disputes regarding property and electricity supply. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. disconnection due to unauthorized construction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. condition for continued electricity supply pending appeal. (Para 15)
5. conclusion of the petition. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no. 1 to provide a fresh electricity connection to the petitioner or in the alternative to restore the electricity supply of the petitioner through the existing meter.

2. It is contended that the petitioner along her old parents are residing in the subject property.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an ongoing dispute with respondent no. 2 and respondent No. 2 has set up a sale deed in respect of the subject property in his favour.

4. He submits that the petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and respondent no. 2 has filed a suit for possession of the property and both the Suits are pending adjudication.

5. Further it is contended that the petitioner has been in continuation possession of the subject property since 2007 and has been enjoying the electricity supply to the said premises.

6. It is submitted that based on the sale deed, respondent no. 2 had got the electricity meter, which was originally in the name of the petitioner, changed into his own name and has thereafter made a request for disconnection of the electricity supply.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Suit for injunction was filed in 2019 against disconnection of the electricity supply and there was an interim protection granted to the petitioner. On 03.03.2021 application for injunction has been dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that an appeal has been filed against the order which is pending before the appellate Court.

8. He submits that petitioner is seeking an independent electricity connection in the property, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and pending adjudication of the rights of the parties in the Suits.

9. This is disputed by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

10. By order dated 08.03.2021 noticing that the petitioner has been admittedly in possession of the subject property since 2007 and has been enjoying the electricity supply, respondent/BSES-Rajdhani Power Ltd. was directed to restore the electricity supply to the meter that already stood installed in the premises.

11. It is informed that the electricity supply has since been restored.

12. Learned counsel appearing for BSES-RPL submits that the electricity supply was disconnected because of an intimation received from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation for disconnection of electricity supply on the ground that there was unauthorized construction in the shape of additional/alternations at ground floor and first floor without prior permission of the SDMC.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - MCD impugning the coercive action taken by the SDMC and by order dated 06.09.2019 coercive action contemplated by the Corporation has been stayed.

14. Since there is a direction by the SDMC to the BSES-RPL directing them to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises occupied by the petitioner, no independent connection can be granted to the petitioner unless the petitioner succeeds in the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal - MCD.

15. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent/BSES-RPL not to disconnect the electricity supply to the existing meter subject to petitioner paying the regular electricity bills.

16. This, however, will be subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner which is stated to be pending before the Appellate Tribunal - MCD and would be without pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document