{"id":130022,"date":"2002-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002"},"modified":"2018-08-16T23:12:27","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T17:42:27","slug":"r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: M A Khan<\/div>\n
Bench: M A Khan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Mahmood Ali Khan, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This civil writ petition is filed under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the
\ndefendant to grant rebate in the billing of the
\nelectricity consumed by the petitioner and for refund of
\nRs. 508.57, which was paid as cost of the meter.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The facts are simple. The petitioner is residing
\nin house No. 70, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar. Two
\nelectricity meters were installed for supplying
\nelectricity to this house. Electricity meter
\nK.No.RK584507 was supplying electricity to the ground
\nfloor and electricity meter K.No.RK584061 was supplying
\nelectricity to the first floor of the house. In August,
\n1989 the first meter was damaged. On a complaint being
\nmade the staff of the respondent. DESU now known as DVB,
\nconnected the line of the damaged electricity meter to
\nthe second meter. As a result, the electricity consumed
\non the ground floor was being billed as per meter
\nreading of the second meter. As demanded by the DESU, a
\nsum of Rs. 508.57 was paid as cost of the new meter but
\nthe meter was not replaced for over 6 years. It was
\nprovided on 25.1.1996. In the meantime all the bills of
\nthe electricity were duly paid as per the reading of the
\nsecond meter (which was supplying electricity to the
\nfirst floor). Yet the respondent continued to bill the
\npetitioner in respect of the second electricity meter
\nalso on load basis. It continued to issue such bills
\ninspite of protest and representation made by the
\npetitioner. At last an application was moved before
\nBijli Adalat for refund of Rs. 508.57 and withdrawal of
\nthe demand in respect of the damaged meter. On 5.9.1997
\nBijli Adalat directed the withdrawal of entire demand
\nraised in respect of the damaged meter. The grievance
\nof the petitioner is that while the damaged meter was
\nnot replaced from September, 1989 to January, 1996, the
\nelectricity consumed in the ground floor was charged as
\nper meter reading of only one meter. It was stated that
\nthe pattern of consumption of the electricity on the
\nground floor and the first floor showed that the
\nconsumption had always ranged between 500 units and
\n1000-1500 units in each floor. The billing for the
\nelectricity used in the ground floor was chargeable at a
\nlower rate for the first 300 units as per tariff rate
\nbut no such lower tariff rate was allowed and the
\nbilling was done at the maximum rate of Rs. 3 per unit
\nfor the total consumption of the damaged meter as per
\nthe reading of the second meter. The petitioner
\napproached Bijli Adalat again in November, 1997 which
\ndeclined to interfere. It rather observed that as per
\ntariff, the electricity supplied to one premises cannot
\nbe used in another premises and if it was done, the
\nmis-use charges were leviable which, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, were not levied. Thereafter,
\nthe petitioner approached the Chairman of the
\nRespondent. The petitioner was advised that he had
\noption to raise the grievance before the conciliatory
\ncourt. Accordingly, on 15.7.1998 he filed an
\napplication before the conciliatory court, which was
\nreplaced by the permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat on
\n04.2.2000 rejected the application observing that there
\nwas no possibility of an amicable settlement of the
\ndispute between the parties. According to the
\npetitioner, the responsibility of maintaining the meter
\nwas on the respondent. Section 26 of the Indian
\nElectricity Act and Rule 57 framed there under enjoined
\nupon the respondent to make regular checks on the
\nelectricity meter. There was no justification for the
\nrespondent for not changing the damaged meter for over 6
\nyears in spite of the full knowledge and repeated
\nrequests. There was no question of any mis-use of the
\nelectricity by the petitioner since the electricity
\nlines of the defective meter were connected to the
\nsecond meter by the staff of the respondent which came
\nto attend the complaint. The petitioner could not be
\npunished for negligence and inaction of its staff in not
\nreplacing the damaged electricity meter for a long time
\ncausing substantial financial loss to the petitioner as
\nhe was deprived of the lower tariff rate for the first
\n300 units of the electricity consumed on the ground
\nfloor. Hence, the petition.\n<\/p>\n
 3. On noticing, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Executive Engineer
\nof the respondent DVB filed a counter affidavit in which
\nhe repudiated the claim of the petitioner. He deposed
\nthat the meter in question was got damaged and its load
\nwas transferred to the other meter that was alive by the
\npetitioner himself without the knowledge of the
\nrespondent. The bills on the damaged meter were wrongly
\nraised, so they were later on withdrawn in September,
\n1997 in compliance of the decision of the Bijli Adalat.
\nThe concessional slab system is applicable only when
\nseparate meters exist and alive and record regular
\nconsumption of electricity as per tariff provision. The
\nBijli Adalat or permanent Lok Adalat have rightly turned
\ndown the claim of the petitioner for concessional slab
\nof tariff. The mis-use of the live meter where
\nelectricity was being used in both the floors has not
\nbeen levied as per the decision of the Bijli Adalat.
\nThe total concessional slab rate on one meter is
\nimpermissible. The total consumption of the electricity
\nwas properly recorded in the meter and the concessional
\nslab rate was not clearly available to the consumer.
\nRefund of the cost of the meter could also not be
\nallowed as the meter has been installed. It was
\ncontended that the writ petition was liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 4. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the
\npetitioner reiterated his own allegations and denied
\nthose of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 5. I have heard the petitioner in person and counsel
\nfor respondent DVB at length.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
\nelectricity meter installed in the ground floor was
\ndamaged in August, 1989. The staff of the respondent,
\nwho attended to the complaint, without his consent had
\nconnected the wires of the damaged meter to the second
\nlive meter on the assurance that the damaged meter would
\nbe replaced soon. Despite his writing several letters
\nand complaints, the damaged meter was not replaced,
\nwhich was the duty of the respondent to do so within
\nseven days. The damaged meter was ultimately replaced
\nonly in January, 1996. Consequently, he submitted, the
\nelectricity consumed at the ground floor continued to be
\nbilled as per the meter reading of the second live meter
\nwhich used to supply electricity to the first floor. He
\nargued that as per tariff, he was entitled to
\nconcessional rate for the first 300 units consumed on
\nthe ground floor which he was deprived of when he was
\nforced to make the payment of the electricity consumed
\non the ground floor at the higher tariff rate of Rs. 3
\nper unit. It was submitted that the pattern of
\nconsumption of the electricity on the ground floor and
\nthe first floor had shown that the electricity
\nconsumption on each floor ranged between 500 units to
\n1000-1500 units. As such, the respondent should have
\nbilled the petitioner for the electricity consumed at
\nthe ground floor at concessional rate tariff for the
\nfirst 300 units in addition to a similar rate charged
\nfor electricity used in the first floor. In other
\nwords, he submitted that the respondent has over-charged
\nthe petitioner by billing the entire consumption of the
\ntwo meters at the maximum rate of Rs. 3 per unit. He
\nurged that the respondent should refund the amount which
\nhad been charged in excess before the first meter was
\nreplaced. He further submitted that the electricity
\nmeter was to be provided by the DVB for which it was
\nalso to charge hire rent but he was made to pay
\nRs. 508.57 for replacement of damaged meter, therefore,
\nthis amount was also illegally recovered from him and
\nshould be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
 7. It was also argued by the petitioner that the
\nBijli Adalat has wrongly observed that the petitioner
\nwas misusing the electricity or was liable to be billed
\nfor it. According to him, the word ‘mis-use’ was not
\ndefined in Indian Electricity Act or the rules framed
\nthere under and this word was defined in the Electric
\nTariff which came into effect from 01.3.1991. In
\naccordance with this definition, feeding from any live
\nconnection to any connection lying disconnected due to
\nany reason in a building where there is more than one
\nconnection was mis-use. But in the instant case, he
\nargued, there was no disconnection of electricity
\nconnection in this building. It was only a damaged
\nmeter which was to be replaced and the live connection
\nwas connected to the second live meter of the building
\nby the irresponsible staff of the respondent of their
\nown in order to ensure continued supply of electricity
\nto the ground floor till they were able to replace the
\nelectricity meter.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Controverting the argument of the petitioner,
\ncounsel for respondent DVB argued that the tariff rules
\ndo not allow bifurcation of the electricity unit
\nconsumed by the petitioner through a meter which was in
\nworking order and billing the petitioner at concessional
\nrate of tariff in respect of some units on the
\nassumption that those were used on the ground floor. It
\nis submitted that the Bijli Adalat has already granted
\nrelief to the petitioner when he approached it for
\nwithdrawal of the wrong billing in respect of the
\ndamaged meter. He submitted that the connecting wires
\nof the damaged meter to the second live meter was in
\ncontravention of the Electricity Act and the rules
\nframed there under for which mis-use charges could be
\nlevied but the DVB has not levied them in the peculiar
\nfacts and circumstances of the case. He further
\nsubmitted that the claim of the petitioner whether it is
\nin respect of the alleged excess payment on account of
\nbilling of the electricity consumed at the maximum
\ntariff rate of Rs. 3 per unit or on account of the
\npayment of the cost of the electricity meter are not
\nrefundable to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 9. I have given careful consideration to the
\narguments advanced by the parties at the bar. For
\nappreciating the arguments, the facts of the case may be
\nrecapitulated briefly as follows. The petitioner had
\ntwo electricity meters installed in his house. One
\nmeter supplied electricity to the ground floor and the
\nsecond feeded it to the first floor. In August, 1989
\nthe electricity meter which supplied electricity to the
\nground floor got damaged. The staff of the respondent
\nDVB which came to attend the complaint was of the view
\nthat there was some internal defect in the meter and it
\nrequired replacement. Allegedly in order to ensure
\ncontinued electricity supply to the ground floor portion
\nof the house, the live electricity wire of the damaged
\nmeter was connected to the live electricity meter
\ninstalled for the first floor. Consequently, the second
\nmeter recorded the reading for the consumption of the
\nelectricity not only for the first floor but also used
\nin the ground floor. Till then between September, 1989
\nand December, 1995 the petitioner paid for the
\nelectricity consumed on the ground floor as per the
\nelectricity bills pertaining to the second meter.
\nDuring this period the DESU wrongly billed the
\npetitioner in respect of the damaged meter at load
\nbasis. On the petitioner’s protest and representation
\nagainst it, this mistake was corrected and the demand
\nwas withdrawn before Bijli Adalat. Up-to-date
\nelectricity charges as per bills raised for the two
\nelectricity connections have now been paid by the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 10. The short controversy is whether the DESU ought
\nto have billed the electricity supplied through the
\nsecond meter to the ground floor at the concessional
\nlower rate of tariff for first 300 units consumed there.
\nThe petitioner has not been able to point out any
\nprovisions under the Electricity Act or rules framed
\nthere under or the tariff rules under which a consumer
\nwill be entitled to be charged at the concessional rate
\nfor first 300 units in case the electricity is supplied
\nthrough one meter to two different premises in the same
\nbuilding, one of which was previously receiving the
\nelectricity through a properly installed meter. In
\nfact, the connection of the electricity wires of the
\nground floor portion to the electricity meter installed
\nfor the first floor is in violation of the agreement
\nbetween the DESU\/DVB and the consumer and contravention
\nof the Electricity Act and the rules framed there under.
\nIt could not have been done legally. If some
\nunscrupulous and irresponsible official of the
\nrespondent in order to save the petitioner from any
\ninconvenience and hardship, connected the wires of the
\nground floor with the electricity meter of the first
\nfloor, the respondent could not have been blamed for it.
\nIndeed there is considerable delay in the replacement of
\nthe damaged electricity meter by the respondent but the
\npetitioner knew from the beginning in 1989 that the
\nelectricity which he was using on the ground floor was
\nbeing received through the electricity meter of the first
\nfloor. He was bound to pay for the electricity as per
\nthe meter reading and cannot be heard complaining that
\nit was done by the DVB staff for a short period which
\nprolonged to over six years. The contention of the
\npetitioner that during this period he had been
\ncontacting the respondent for replacement of the meter
\nwill not entitle him to the benefit of a lower tariff
\nfor the first 300 units on the assumption that almost
\nhalf of the electricity was being used in the ground
\nfloor. The tariff rules allowed billing of units up to
\nfirst 300 units at a lower concessional rate but it
\ncould not have divided the meter reading of the second
\nmeter in order to give benefit of concessional lower
\nrate to the petitioner in two portions.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Moreover, how much units of electricity was being
\nactually consumed on the ground floor cannot be
\ndetermined on an assumption or the consumption pattern
\nfor the subsequent period or for the periods prior to
\n1989 or subsequent to January, 1996. It is a
\ncontentious issue which cannot be determined in the writ
\njurisdiction by this court. The dispute about excess
\nbilling or refund of cost of meter replaced may be
\nagitated in a civil suit or any other civil proceedings.
\nBut the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary,
\ndiscretionary jurisdiction of this court for recovery of
\na certain amount which he is alleged to have paid to the
\nrespondent in excess of what he would have paid had the
\ndamaged electricity meter been replaced in August, 1989
\ni.e. within the period of seven days as per electricity
\nrules. But he admitted that the electricity was
\nconsumed through the electricity meter which was meant
\nfor the first floor.\n<\/p>\n
 12. It cannot be denied that the normal remedy for
\nobtaining refund of excess payment made to State or the
\ninstrumentality of the State is by filing a suit in a
\ncivil court. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in
\nGeetha Timbers v. State of Kerala, 1990(1) KLT 402
\nmade the following observation which aptly apply to this
\ncase as well:\n<\/p>\n
  “This Court has held time and
\nagain that in contractual matters writ
\npetition will not normally be
\nentertained. For enforcement of
\ncontractual rights parties should avail
\nremedies by way of civil suit and should
\nnot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
\navailable under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India.”\n<\/p>\n
 13. In Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Another v. Ram
\nBahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd.,<\/a>  it was
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
  “Senior counsel for the
\nappellants was right when he contended
\nthat if it was felt by the Court that
\nhighly disputed question of facts arose
\nfor its decision the writ petitioners
\ncould have been relegated to the remedy
\nby way of a civil suit where matter could
\nhave been thrashed out on proper
\nevidence.”\n<\/p>\n
 14. Similar view was taken in Mrs. Sheela Thomas and
\nOthers v. The State of Kerala and Another  and State of U.P. and Others v. Bridge &
\nRoof Company (India) Ltd.,  and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathi,<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
 15. In this case the petitioner claims refund of
\nexcess amount which needs evidence for its
\ndetermination. The writ jurisdiction is not the
\nappropriate remedy for all the dispute raised in this
\nwrit. The extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of
\nthe court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia cannot be exercised by the court in order to grant
\nrelief to the petitioner in this case.\n<\/p>\n
 16. The grievance of the petitioner that the
\nallegation of the DVB before the conciliatory court or
\nBijli Adalat that it was a case of the mis-use of the
\nelectricity, to my view is not relevant since it is not
\ndisputed that no mis-use charges as leviable under the
\ntariff rules were ever imposed upon the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 17. Having regard to the above discussion, I do not
\nfind any merit in the petition. It is dismissed. But
\nin the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
\nparties are left to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 Author: M A Khan Bench: M A Khan JUDGMENT Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the defendant to grant rebate in the billing of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2835,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\",\"name\":\"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002"},"wordCount":2835,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002","name":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T17:42:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kapur-vs-delhi-vidyut-board-on-21-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Kapur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 21 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}