Until 07.07.2024, M/s Valencia Facility Services LLP(builders Maintenance agency) managed maintenance and electricity distribution under the Builder's single-point connection (Consumer No. 2000121691) registered under M/s Valencia Homes with GSTIN 09AAHFV9867B2ZM and PAN AAHFV9867B, serving 870 flats through the Kruti Systems Smart Grid Software.
On 24.06.2024, the Deputy Registrar (Chit Fund) dissolved the Apartment Owners Association, determining its election was a sham.
On 07.07.2024, Vinay Kumar Singh (K-1506) and Uday Shankar Prasad (D-1201), claiming to be president and secretary of the dissolved Association, led approximately 40 bouncers into the Builder's maintenance office, physically assaulted VFS staff, evicted them, and seized complete control of the electricity distribution system including all meters, distribution panels, and the Smart Grid Software.
FIR was registered on 05.08.2024 under BNS Sections 61(2)/134/189/238/307/333 at Bisrakh Police Station, confirmed vide RTI Reference No. PCGBN/R/2025/60287. The accused are on anticipatory bail and face criminal prosecution.
Upon seizing control, the accused hijacked the Builder's single-point connection, deployed their own software on 870 meters across 870 flats, and illegally transferred all positive and negative electricity balances from the Builder's software onto their newly installed software. As of 07.07.2024, the closing balance against our flat on the Builder's software stood at approximately Rs. 20,000, the bulk of which was already under dispute in a civil recovery suit filed by the Builder's maintenance agency in November 2023, well before this criminal takeover. The dissolved Association nevertheless demanded payment of these disputed amounts as a precondition for electricity recharge. The Builder has regularly issued circulars warning flat owners that any payment under any head, including electricity of pre-July 2024 dues to this non-elected criminal enterprise is made at the owner's own risk.
| Period | Authority | Amount Paid |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 to July 2024 | Builder | All electricity dues cleared except disputed amount |
| July 2024 to Oct 2025 | Criminal Enterprise | All electricity dues cleared under protest and duress |
| Oct 2025 to June 2026 | Criminal Enterprise | Recharge access blocked; cheque till June 2026 under Ombudsman custody in favour of either Builder or NPCL |
The central vulnerability in the CGRF order, and therefore the strongest line of attack on appeal, is the Forum's application of Regulation 3.10(b). The Forum conflated two fundamentally distinct proceedings. The Recovery Suit No. 1176 of 2023 is a money suit filed by the Builders Maintenance agency against my parents as defendant in Delhi Civic Suit for recovery of maintenance and other charges. Your complaint before the CGRF concerns the illegal disconnection and withholding of electricity supply, the deactivation of Urjavi App deployed by non-elect AOA access, and the conditioning of electricity recharge upon payment of disputed electricity charges of Builder's period and unrelated non-electricity charges (CAM, water, club). These are regulatory and consumer protection grievances under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the UP Electricity Supply Code, which fall squarely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the CGRF and the Ombudsman. A Civil Court adjudicating a money recovery suit has no jurisdiction to grant the regulatory reliefs you seek, namely restoration of electricity supply, directions to NPCL regarding metering, and enforcement of the Supply Code provisions.
Also, Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — Civil Court Not to Have Jurisdiction: Section 145 is a jurisdictional bar provision. The exact statutory text reads: "No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." So the CGRF case terminated on maintainability is ill-conceived and ill-motivated and the Ombudsman is on the same track.
In today's hearing dated 12.03.2026, the Ombudsman attempted to kill the appeal on the same maintainability ground and directed the Appellant to settle a disputed, unproven sum pertaining entirely to the Builder's period. The dissolved non-elect AOA is not even a party to the civil suit. The amount demanded derives from criminal trespass, tampering of metering in violation of Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and illegally importing financial ledger of software deployed by Builder till July 2024. Even if the civil suit decree goes against us, liability lies with the Builder, not the dissolved AOA. Paying them now means paying twice. Offenses under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are non-bailable, yet both CGRF and Ombudsman ignore them, side with a criminal enterprise and its illegitimate demands, ignore the illegal distribution of electricity under a single-point connection still registered under the Builder's name, and have taken no cognizance whatsoever.