* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 740/2014 & C.M.No.12917-12918/2014
% AUGUST 11, 2014
SH.GURDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Baljeet Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the First Appellate Court dated 06.6.2014 by which the First Appellate Court directed that if the petitioner/plaintiff wants an electricity connection, then besides paying the bill towards normal arrears, the petitioner shall also pay 50% charges of the assessment bill dated 21.5.2014 raised for direct theft of electricity of Rs.1,55,855/-.
2. Surely, electricity companies cannot be directed to give electricity connections once pending arrears/amounts/dues on of account direct theft are alleged to exist, inasmuch as, if connections are granted inspite of charges CM(M) No. 740/2014 Page 1 of 3 towards electricity theft having not being paid, the same would mean that persons would consume electricity illegally, get a electricity connection, thereafter get it disconnected for non-payment of dues, and again ask for a fresh electricity connection inspite of not paying the dues towards the old electricity connection.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case of theft has yet to be proved, however, I note that the First Appellate Court has only directed payment of 50% of the assessment bill, and has not asked to pay 100% of the assessment bill. An electricity company/respondent no.1 cannot be legally called upon to give a fresh connection, although an assessment bill for direct theft is due and not paid.
4. At this stage, I may note that it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was using electricity though the electricity connection against which an assessment bill of direct theft has been raised, inasmuch as except that electricity connection, there was no other electricity connection in the building. The fact that the electricity connection was being used by the wife of the present petitioner/plaintiff, and in whose name the assessment bill has been raised, cannot be very seriously disputed, because except one electricity connection, there was no other electricity connection for CM(M) No. 740/2014 Page 2 of 3 supplying electricity to the entire building and in part of which building the petitioner and his wife are staying.
5. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and are meant to be exercised only where grave injustice is caused, and which is not so in this case. In fact, in my opinion, the First Appellate Court has been liberal towards the petitioner in directing payment of only 50% of direct theft assessment bill.
6. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order dated 06.6.2014, and the petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 11, 2014 KA CM(M) No. 740/2014 Page 3 of 3