The hard-hitting judgment considers the government decision violative of article 15 of the Indian constitution.
"The mere fact that a city has patronage of an unknown alleged VVIP or a highly placed and mighty person would not justify 24 hours supply to the consumers in his constituency depriving other consumers a similar treatment.
"This is wholly irrational, illogical and patently arbitrary. Moreover, the alleged pretext of protocol and VVIP is a sheer eyewash and in any case impermissible in law."
The court directed the state government to ensure fair and reasonable distribution of power to all "except the area covered by the Taj Trapezium Zone in view of the directions of the apex court".
Senior advocate K.C. Jain told IANS: "This definitely qualifies to be an eye-opening judgement and a clear exposure of the high-handedness of the political class."
