Devendri Devi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

¶1

$~25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 15^th January 2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 5456/2024, CM APPL. 22529/2024 & CM APPL. 49714/2024 DEVENDRI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Kaushik and Mr. Rishabh Pandey, Advocates (through VC).

¶5

versus

¶6

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.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5456/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

below:

¶14

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 .

¶15

2.2. In August 2019, during the reconstruction of the aforesaid premises, 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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:

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶22

W.P.(C) 5456/2024

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

In view of the observations made in the paragraph 16, the following

¶25

directions have been passed in paragraph 17, which is set out below:

¶26

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

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5456/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

in question.

¶31

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.

¶32

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5456/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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 suits filed by the respondent no.3 and the petitioner. Further, the grant of an electricity connection does not confer title and ownership in the property.

¶39

The impugned order has placed reliance on Regulation 10(3) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations to allow the appeal. For the sake of convenience, Regulation 10(3) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations is set out below:

¶40

Insofar as the requirement of Regulation 10(3) of the DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017 is concerned, Mr.

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5456/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

Manish Srivastava, counsel for the respondent no.2, submits that the electricity connection was granted on the basis of a Power of Attorney submitted by the petitioner along with an indemnity bond.

¶45

Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that the aforesaid Power of Attorney expired in 2004. 15. This issue has been specifically raised in the civil suit and would be the subject matter of the decision of the Civil Court. Therefore, it was not for the Electricity Ombudsman to get into this issue.

¶46

Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of the property when the electricity connection was granted in her favour.

¶47

In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman is set aside.

¶48

Liberty is given to the respondent no.3 to approach the respondent no.2/TPDDL after the decision in the civil suits.

¶49

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶50

JANUARY 15, 2026 Rzu

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2026 19:04:31

¶53

W.P.(C) 5456/2024

¶54

Page 6 of 6

Devendri Devi v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendri Devi v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Nord Anglia Education Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2) (2), New Delhi

Ruchika Tanwar Vs the Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

M/S Kanti Prashad Mittal Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways through Govt. of Assam, PWD

Anmol Enterprises Vs Superintendent, Range -90, Division Palam, Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate and Ors.

India Power Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar

Shri Ajay Jain Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Khurana Vs S.L. Gogia & Anr.

Shri Harvinder Singh Anr. Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Jaseb Enterprises Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Shivam Adlakha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sunil Kumari Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.