Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Anurag Sharma on 29 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7679
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2563 of 2025
29th August, 2025
Executive Engineer Edd ............Petitioner
Versus
Anurag Sharma .............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the order dated 23.04.2025, whereby it was
held and directed to the petitioner by the Electricity
Ombudsman that without paying any outstanding dues
new electricity connection be released in favour of
respondent.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner -
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited is a licensed
electricity distributor under the Electricity Act, 2003. The
respondent applied for a new electricity connection for
Dharamshala Khilandi Bai, Haridwar, but the application
was rejected due to outstanding dues of ₹1,54,306/-
linked to an earlier connection at the same premises in
the name of one - Mr. Paras Kumar Jain. Despite
repeated reminders the dues remained unpaid, leading to
the issuance of recovery certificate by the Executive
Engineer to the District Collector under the Uttar
Pradesh Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues
Recovery) Act, 1958.
2025:UHC:7679
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the order of Electricity Ombudsman is unsustainable
in law as it ignores the statutory provisions under the
Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (U.E.R.C.)
and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.C. Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others
reported in (2023) 6 SCC 411. The premise already had an
electricity connection (No.6960201030048) with unpaid
dues of ₹1,54,306/-, for which recovery steps had already
started. Even though the respondent has obtained
ownership of the property through a Civil Court order, the
old dues on the premises are still pending. She further
submitted that as per sub-clause 3 of regulation 3.2.3 of
U.E.R.C. (The Electricity Supply Code, Release of new
connections and related matters) Regulation, 2020, licensee
shall ascertain whether any dues are outstanding on the
premises and if so, the Licensee shall issue a demand note
within 5 days from date of receipt of the application form
giving full details of such outstanding amount. The
applicant shall be required to deposit outstanding dues
within 15 days, failing which his application shall stand
lapse and the applicant shall be informed accordingly in
writing under acknowledgment.
4. Upon perusal of the material on record, and
the impugned order passed by the Electricity
Ombudsman, this Court finds no illegality or perversity
warranting interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The Electricity Ombudsman has exercised
jurisdiction vested in it under the Electricity Act, 2003,
and has rendered a reasoned decision in light of
consumer interest and equitable considerations.
5. Furthermore, while Regulation 3.2.3(3)
empowers the licensee to demand dues from an applicant
2025:UHC:7679
if such dues are linked to the premises, the same must
be harmonized with the objective of ensuring access to
electricity--a basic necessity--particularly where the new
applicant is a bona fide purchaser and has no nexus with
the defaulting consumer.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Ninan
(supra), while upholding the right of electricity boards to
recover dues, also emphasized the necessity of balancing
such rights with fairness to consumers, particularly in
cases involving change of ownership without privity with
the defaulter. The Ombudsman, in the present case,
rightly exercised his discretion by taking note of the civil
court decree in respondent's favour and the absence of
any privity with the defaulting consumer.
7. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the
decision of the Ombudsman. The scope of interference
under Article 227 is limited to examining whether the
subordinate authority acted within its jurisdiction and
followed principles of natural justice. No such violation is
made out in the present case.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.08.2025
SK
