Complainant/respondent applied for 8 electric connections for different portions of his property No.1, Guru Angad Nagar, Delhi and completed all the required formalities for the said connection. The connections were not released. Petitioner had conducted an inspection on the respondent’s premises on 1.8.2005 and found that the respondent was indulging in direct theft of electricity through Meter No.114506; that details of meter No.114506 were not available on record of the petitioner. Petitioner asked the respondent to clear the bills of the existing meter. Respondent failed to do so. Respondent filed the complaint seeking a direction to the petitioner to install the 8 connections. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to process the application moved by the respondent without considering the factum of the booking of DT or liability of complainant as per its rules. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing thus : “In our view the question of providing independent electricity connections in different portions of the property was independent question and not connected with the allegation of direct theft through one of the meters already installed in the premises namely meter no.114506. If at all there was any grievance on this score, the appellant was free to raise the electricity bills on the allegations of direct theft but in no way could have rejected the applications for new electricity connections. Since the complaint was filed only for providing the new electricity connections which was rejected on the basis of the allegation of theft, we partly allow the appeal by directing the appellant to process the applications for new electricity connections independently and without being influenced by the report dated 1.8.2005 in respect of meter No.114506 and initiate fresh proceeding, if any, against the respondent on the basis of allegations of theft by raising of bill as per provision of law and recovery thereof.” Respondent could not be served in ordinary way. Respondent was served by substituted service by publication of notice in Indian Express (English) and Punjab Kesari (Hindi) – Delhi Editions for 10.5.2011. Respondent did not appear despite service and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – JT 2008 (12) SC 672 contends that the petitioner could refuse to give connection in a sub-divided portion of the building unless the arrears of electricity due from an earlier connection are cleared. Supreme Court, in the said case, relied upon sub-clauses (g) and (h) of General Supply Rules in which there was a rule specifically dealing with such a situation. The same is extracted below : “(g) Where the property has been legally sub-divided, the outstanding dues for the consumption of energy on such premises, if any, shall be divided on pro-rata basis. (h) A new connection to such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such sub-divided premises, is duly paid by the applicant. Licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that, dues on the other portion(s) of such premises have not been paid, nor shall the licensee demand record of last paid bills of other portion(s) from such applicants.” Relevant rules have not been put on record. They have not been considered either by the District Forum or the State Commission. Since the State Commission did not take into consideration the relevant rules framed by the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Case (supra). Petitioner, through counsel, is directed to appear before the State Commission on 5.7.2012. | 
