JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 20.7.2010 passed by Electricity Ombudsman confirming order dated 18.2.2010 of District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum awarding damages of Rs. 9095/- at the rate of Rs. 85/- per day for 114 days in accordance with paragraph 7.7.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2005’). 3. It appears that respondent No. 4 applied for an electric connection at premises 8/56-C, Arya Nagar, Kanpur but the electric connection was not released. 9095/- at the rate of Rs. 85/- per day for 114 days in accordance with paragraph 7.7.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2005’). 3. It appears that respondent No. 4 applied for an electric connection at premises 8/56-C, Arya Nagar, Kanpur but the electric connection was not released. In the situation, respondent No. 4 approached District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCGRF’) in Complaint No. 55 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 29.7.2009 observing as under : ^^ifjoknh ,oa dsLdks ds }kjk izLrqr lHkh vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k rFkk muds i{kksa dks Hkh lquk x;kA Qksje ds le{k izsf"kr Q~ySV dh jftLV~h ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd cgqeaftyk Hkou 84 oxZ ehVj ¼100 oxZ xt½ ds IykV ij cuk;k x;k gSA jftLV~h ds i`"B la0 10 esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd fcYMj }kjk Hkou dk uD’kk ds0Mh0,0 ls LohÑr Iyku ds vuqlkj cuk;k x;k A jftLV~h ds izFke i`"B ij mYys[k gS fd cgqeafty Hkou dk dqy vkPNkfnr {ks=Qy 356-07 oxZ ehVj gS fo|qr iznk; lafgrk 2005 dh /kkjk 4-9 ds vuqlkj ,dy fcUnq ij fo|qr la;kstu u;s ?kjsyw la;kstu] cgqeaftyh Hkouksa dkyksfu;ksa dks 25 ds0MCyw0 ls vf/kd Hkkj ds lkFk iznku fd;k tk;sxkA ysfdu] ;g O;fDrxr la;kstu ds fy, ykxw djus ls O;fDrxr Lokeh dks fucZfU/kr ugha djsxk vkSj vuqkfIr/kkjh ,y0Vh0 ij ,sls vkosnd dks la;kstu LohÑr djsxkA blh /kkjk ds vUrxZr fn;s x;s fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj ftl cgqeaftys Hkou dk vkPNkfnr {ks=Qy 500 oxZ ehVj ls vf/kd vFkok fo|qr Hkkj dh ekax 25 fd0ok0 ls vfèkd gks] ogkWa ij gh ifjorZd yxk;s tkus dh vko’;drk gSA vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;Urk us ifjoknh ls la;kstu gsrq izkFkZuk &i= izkIr gksuk Lohdkj ugha fd;k ijUrq izcU/k funs’kd ds ek/;e ls izkFkZuk&i= izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA Qksje ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr gksus rd vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;Urk }kjk ifjoknh dks mlds izkFkZuk i= ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ leqfpr mRrj ugha fn;k x;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd u;s la;kstu fuxZr djus esa foHkkxh; izfdz;k ikjn’khZ ugha gSA dsLdks ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kj fo|qr iznk; lafgrk 2005 dh /kkjk 4-6 ¼,p½ dk ikyu u dj ifjoknh dks vuko’;d ijs’kku fd;k x;kA iwoZ esa rhu la;kstu blh ifjoknh dks 5 fd0ok0 Hkkj dk LFkkbZ la;kstu fuxZr fd;k tk;A rRi’pkr iwoZ esa fuxZr vLFkkbZ la;kstu lekIr dj fn;k tk;A vkns’k dk ikyu ,d ekg ds vUnj lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;A** 4. The petitioners still did not comply with the said order, and, instead released an electric connection to respondent No. 4 only on 28.8.2009 and that too without installing any meter. The respondent No. 4 complained that despite repeated demand meter was not installed. He approached DCGRF vide Complaint dated 28.11.2009 seeking a direction that since the petitioners have violated the provisions of Supply Code, 2005, appropriate action be taken against them directing them for installation of meter and award damages in accordance with Supply Code, 2005. 5. The above complaint was contested by petitioners. They submitted reply dated 21.1.2010 whereafter Complaint No. 128 of 2009 was decided finally vide order dated 18.2.2010 and DCGRF awarded damages of Rs. 9095/- to petitioners in accordance with paragraph 7.7.2 of Supply Code, 2005. In the meantime and during the pendency of said complaint, meter was installed at the premises of respondent No. 4 on 21.12.2009. 6. The petitioners aggrieved by aforesaid award of damages filed an application/appeal before Electricity Ombudsman under Regulation 8.2. of UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) and Electricity Ombudsman Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation 2007’) which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 20.7.2010. 7. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the meter was not available hence electricity connection was released to respondent No. 4 without installation of meter. Thereafter petitioners sent indent for meter and when meter became available, the same was installed on 21.12.2009. He contended that there was no deliberate fault on the part of petitioners in compliance with DCGRF’s earlier order dated 29.7.2009 and hence no damages ought to have been awarded against petitioners. 8. Perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by DCGRF as well as Electricity Ombudsman makes it clear that so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, he had submitted an application and completed all other formalities as provided in the Statute but petitioners defaulted in releasing electricity connection to him on certain grounds which were legally unsustainable and untenable. For delay the respondent No. 4 was not at fault, this fact was examined by DCGRF in order dated 9.7.2009 and it has recorded a finding of fact that Department has not shown any transparency in releasing new connection. For delay the respondent No. 4 was not at fault, this fact was examined by DCGRF in order dated 9.7.2009 and it has recorded a finding of fact that Department has not shown any transparency in releasing new connection. The order shows that for various reasons which were not at all applicable for granting new electric connection to respondent No. 4 there was denial of electricity connection. This approach of petitioners was not approved by DCGRF. It has also recorded a finding that consumer has been unnecessarily harassed by not complying with the requirement of paragraph 4.6(h) of Supply Code, 2005. 9. It is in these circumstances, DCGRF directed petitioners to release electricity connection of 5 KVA load to the respondent No. 4 within one month. Unconcerned by the said order, petitioners find it convenient to act according to their own convenience and in that context connection was delayed by committing breach of the statutory provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. It is admitted by petitioners that electricity connection was released to the respondent No. 4 only on 28.8.2009 but without installing meter. The Statute clearly contemplates that electricity connection shall be released by installing a meter. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that releasing of electric connection without installing meter was illegal and not supported by any provisions of law and exfacie contrary thereto. 11. The respondent No. 4 thereafter claims to have made repeated demand for installation of meter which has not been disputed in paragraph 2 of the reply dated 21.1.2010 but it says that meter was not available for which they have indented. No material was placed before this Court or in that case even before DCGRF or the Electricity Ombudsman to show how and in what manner meter was not available. Whether the meter was lying with stores where from it was indented or it was to be purchased new. Proviso to Sections 55 (1) contemplates that a meter could be installed by a consumer himself by purchasing if he chooses so. It was always open to petitioners to avail that facility also but in their wisdom they undaunted and dared not to care of the order of DCGRF or requirement of the Statute and set at ease to proceed in their own way and convenience. It was always open to petitioners to avail that facility also but in their wisdom they undaunted and dared not to care of the order of DCGRF or requirement of the Statute and set at ease to proceed in their own way and convenience. They have gone to the extent of belated releasing electric connection in a wholly illegal and unauthorized manner. The date of installation of meter is 21.12.2009 mentioned in paragraph 2 of the reply filed by the petitioners themselves. 12. It is in these circumstances, both the authorities below found that the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners was fully proved and fortified. Hence damages in accordance with rules prescribed in paragraph 7.7.2 was to be imposed which has been imposed by means of impugned order and the Electricity Ombudsman have confirmed it. 13. Unfortunately and this is also strange that the Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited did not examined who is the person responsible for belated release of electricity connection and that too without installing meter, it was apt to ask its authorities to follow statutory provisions strictly. It would have been better for him to take appropriate departmental action against such officials who have shown such laxity instead of saving and protecting them. Unfortunately he has joined the litigation as petitioner No. 1 by challenging the orders which the learned counsel for the petitioners find very difficult to defend. He also could not point out any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Evidently this Court is satisfied that writ petition is wholly frivolous, unwarranted and could have been avoided. It is a futile and frivolous litigation carried to this Court by the instrumentality of the State despite repeated observations otherwise by this Court as well as the Apex Court that State and its instrumentalities should refrain from unnecessarily flooding this Court with frivolous, vexatious litigations. It appears that repeated observations are not causing any impact on the petitioners in continuing with their habit of going ahead with all kinds of litigations without prior scrutiny and examination at their own level despite of having a good team of legal experts. This is nothing but sheer wastage of precious public revenue and also highly valuable time of this Court. This is nothing but sheer wastage of precious public revenue and also highly valuable time of this Court. In the result, in my view, writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed with cost. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with cost which is quantified to Rs. 5,000/-. ——————