Full Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioners are the occupants of premises No. 17, Janpath, New Delhi and are the registered consumers of electricity supplied by respondent through K.No. 60817. The petitioners applied for additional load on 22.3.2001 to increase it from 12.38 KW to 50.50 KW.
2. The petitioners sent reminders to the respondents and ultimately received a letter dated 31.5.2001 requesting the petitioner to submit certain documents which are stated to have been submitted. However, instead of increasing the load of the petitioner the respondents started levying misuse charges @ 100 per cent in the electricity bills on the ground of use of excess load by the petitioner. The petitioner thus filed the respondent writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to sanction the necessary additional load an for stoppage of levy misuse charges.
3. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the load already sanctioned to the petitioner was so sanctioned in accordance with the norms for such sanction of load on covered area basis as the premises of the petitioner had a covered area of 1170 sq.ft., on the ground floor. It is further stated that in response to the request of the petitioner for additional load, the respondents sent a letter dated 23.4.2001 starting that the request of the petitioner for additional load could not be acceded to as it is not technically feasible from the existing system for ensuring equitable distribution of energy. It is further stated that on 2.4.2002 additional load was sanctioned of 19.16 KW and now the total load sanctioned is 31.54 KW. It is also stated as soon as additional load becomes technically feasible in the electrical distribution of the area the request of the petitioner for sanction of the additional load would be considered.
4. In so far as the issue of misuse charges is concerned it is stated that the same was levied w.e.f. 17.9.2001 on account of use of extra load i.e., 46.79 KW against the sanctioned load of 12.38 KW.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has applied for the additional load, the respondents are duty bound to give the same. Learned counsel has referred to a notification dated 15.2.2001 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi called Delhi Electricity Control (Amendment) Order, 2001 which provides for grant of electricity connection and demand except in case the are where the network is not existing or where specific orders from any court disallowing grant of electricity connection. Learned counsel contends that once the extra load can be drawn from the existing installation, there should be no question of misuse charges.
6. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The extra load has been granted to the petitioner after examining the technical feasibility for the same. There is a proforma providing for such technical feasibility. It has not been found technically feasible to grant full load to the petitioner and it has been stated that the same shall be considered as and when the same can be provided. I see no irregularity in the same since technical feasibility is an important aspect while granting any increase in the sanctioned load and the equitable distribution of energy has also to be kept in mind.
7. In so far as the issue of misuse charges is concerned, the petitioner cannot be his own decide to utilise extra energy without there being a sanctioned load only on the basis of an application made. If that plea was to be accepted it would create a chaotic position since every applicant seeking extra load would start using load without there being a sanction for the same. Since the petitioner used the extra load, the surcharge has been so levied.
8. I find no merit in the writ petition.
9. Dismissed.