$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15^th January 2026 + W.P.(C)5456/2024,CMAPPL.22529/2024&CMAPPL.49714/2024 DEVENDRI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Kaushik and Mr.

Rishabh Pandey, Advocates (through VC).

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates for R-2 with Mr. Amit Singh, AGM, Legal.

Mr. M.M. Kashyap and Ms. Poonam Seth, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition assails an order dated 25^th January, 2024, passed by the office of Electricity Ombudsman, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 was disposed of with a direction that a new connection shall be installed in the premises in question in the name of the respondent no.3, and that the subsisting connection in the name of the petitioner shall be disconnected.

2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out below:

2.1. Since 2003, the petitioner has been enjoying the electricity connection services provided by the respondent no.2/TPDDL at her residential premises bearing No. 847, Khasra No. 141/22, Ground Floor, Block B, Gali No. 21/4, Shiv Kunj, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi 110084.

2.2. InAugust2019,duringthereconstructionoftheaforesaidpremises,the petitioner surrendered the old electricity connection and obtained a temporary electricity connection from the respondent no.2, which was disconnected on 4^th February 2023.

2.3. On 1^st April 2023, the petitioner obtained a fresh electricity connection in her name after completing the requisite formalities with the respondent no.2/TPDDL.

2.4. The respondent no.3, who is stated to be in a property dispute with the petitioner’s husband (with pending civil and criminal proceedings), filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) seeking disconnection of the petitioner’s electricity connection.

3. The CGRF, by order dated 16^th October 2023, dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent no.3.

4. The respondent no.3 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Electricity Ombudsman, who, by impugned order dated 25^th January 2024, allowed the appeal and directed installation of a new connection in the respondent no.3’s name and disconnection/removal of the petitioner’s electricity connection. The Electricity Ombudsman has made observations in this regard in paragraph 16 of the impugned order, which is set out below:

5. In view of the observations made in the paragraph 16, the following directions have been passed in paragraph 17, which is set out below:

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from suffering from various inconsistencies, the aforesaid order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the said order virtually decides the subsisting title dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3 in respect of the property in question.

7. While issuing notice in the petition on 16^th April, 2024, this Court had granted a stay of the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman.

8. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

9. It is an admitted position that the respondent no.3 has filed a civil suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the aforesaid premises. The petitioner has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent no.3. Both the said suits are stated to be pending.

10. In this regard, the CGRF has correctly observed that the forums under the DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, cannot decide the question of title/ownership of property and said issue can only be decided in a civil suit. The relevant observations of the CGRF are set out below:

11. In my considered view, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to go into the issue of the title of the subject property, which is the subject matter of the civil