$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 545/2026 SHEKHAR BARNWAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shubham Shukla, Mr. Mukund Ranjan, Mr. I. S. Sharma, Advs. versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, SC for BSES with Mr. Sharique Hussain, Ms. Kirti Garg, Advs. for BSES CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 22.07.2026 CM APPL. 46080/2026 1. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the averments made in the instant application, the application is allowed and delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 46081/2026 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. LPA 545/2026 &CM APPL. 46082/2026 5. This intra-court appeal challenges the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)3931/2025. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:08 6. From a perusal of the records available before us in this intra-court appeal, what we find is that the respondent no.2 has been enjoying the electricity connection since 2004, i.e. since before the death of the father of the appellant. The appellant and the respondent no.2 are real brothers, who live in the same building but on different floors. Father of the appellant and the respondent no.2 died on 26.07.2021 and thereafter on an application made by the appellant, the electricity connection which was earlier in the name of the respondent no.2 was transferred by the Electricity Distribution Company in his name. 7. The respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which was dismissed on 20.03.2023, whereupon the respondent no.2 took the matter to the Electricity Ombudsman in an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2025. It is the said order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Ombudsman, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, who has opined that since both the brothers are living in the separate floors of the same building and a civil dispute as respects the rights in the building is pending consideration. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to deprive the respondent no.2 from the electricity connection. 8. The learned Single Judge has only observed that the electricity connection shall remain in the name of the respondent no.2, till the time the title of the appellant and the respondent no.2 in the subject property is adjudicated in the legal proceedings pending before the appropriate Civil Court. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside one of the directions given in the order passed by the Ombudsman and as a result of which the directions relating to taking action against the appellant stands set aside. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:08 9. Having regard to the overall facts as are placed before us and also considering the facts that both the brothers are living on different floors in the same building and further that the electricity connection has been enjoyed by the respondent no.2 since the year, 2004, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed along with pending application. 10. No order as to costs. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 22, 2026/j This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:46:08