DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS BSES TO REVIEW POWER LOAD REDUCTION DESPITE ONGOING PROPERTY DISPUTE

FACT OF THE CASE

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. for reducing the sanctioned electricity load of a meter assigned to Flat Nos. 1512 and 1513, Ansal Tower, Nehru Place, Delhi. The flats originally belonged to the deceased owner, who had bequeathed them through a Will to her daughters-in-law. Due to pending disputes and mutation issues, the properties remain in the deceased’s name. Acting under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) granted by the Administrator of the Will, the petitioner applied for a reduction in sanctioned load from 16 KV to 5 KV, which was rejected by BSES.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The primary issue before the Court was whether the petitioner, acting under an SPA granted by the Administrator of the deceased’s Will, could validly seek reduction in the sanctioned electricity load of the concerned flats, notwithstanding disputes over ownership and possession.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner contended that he was duly authorized under the SPA granted by the Administrator of the Will to manage the estate of the deceased until the properties were distributed. Since the current tenant of the flats was bearing an excessive electricity bill on account of the high sanctioned load, a reduction was necessary and reasonable. He argued that BSES wrongly refused his application by insisting on proof of ownership or occupancy.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

BSES argued that the application could not be entertained since the petitioner was neither the occupier nor the recorded owner of the property. Respondent No. 2, in whose favour one of the flats had been bequeathed under the Will, contended that the petitioner had no authority to lease or deal with the property and that letting out the flat was improper. However, she did not dispute the existence of the Will itself.

LAW AND CASE LAW DISCUSSION

The Court discussed the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters and emphasized that disputes over ownership or title cannot be adjudicated in such proceedings. It reiterated that utility service providers like BSES are primarily concerned with supply of electricity and not with ownership disputes.

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS INCLUDE:

• 1. Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 SCC 648 – electricity authorities cannot deny supply merely due to disputes over title.
• 2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 101 – electricity is a statutory right subject to reasonable compliance.
• 3. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 210 – electricity distribution companies cannot adjudicate civil disputes over property.

COURT OBSERVED

The Court noted that the flats had been leased out even during the lifetime of the original owner, and hence, the objection by respondent no. 2 regarding leasing could not be sustained. It observed that the dispute over title and possession was irrelevant to the issue of reduction in sanctioned load. The Court emphasized that BSES must confine itself to electricity supply issues and not get entangled in ownership controversies. It clarified that all rights regarding ownership and succession remain open for adjudication in appropriate civil proceedings.

FINAL DIRECTION

The Court directed BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to process and consider the petitioner’s application for reduction of sanctioned electricity load after inspection of the premises and in accordance with law, within four weeks. It clarified that this direction would not create any special equity in favour of the petitioner and that ownership or succession issues would be decided separately in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

DATE OF DECISION

01.08.2025

CASE NUMBER

W.P.(C) 4352/2025