Om Flex Pack Limited vs N.D.M.C. & Another
2001 Latest Caselaw 660 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the levy of misuse charges for electric consumption. Petitioner prayed for stay of the notice of dis-connection of electric supply for non-payment of electricity bill, which included misuse charges @ 200 per cent. Petitioner's case is that the premises were used exclusively for residential purposes only and there was no misuse or use for commercial purpose. The levy of misuse charges was, therefore, unwarranted. Petitioner also complained that it has sought enhancement of sanctioned load, which was still pending.

2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a copy of the counter affidavit, advance copy of which has already been provided to counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record. As per the counter affidavit, respondent/NDMC has carried out repeated inspection, at least three times, and found the property being put partly for residential and partly for commercial use. Respondent/NDMC, therefore, defended imposition of misuse charges at 200 per cent on the electric consumption.

3. It was put to the counsel for the parties that conflicting stand regarding user of premises have been taken. This raises disputed question of fact as to whether the premises were being used exclusively for residential purpose or for commercial use also. The petitioner contended, it was used exclusively for residential use while the respondent in three inspection found the user to be both the residential and commercial. Such disputed question of fact could not be determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the malpractices on account of which citizens some time suffer and the situation is exploited, it was put to the counsel for the petitioner that a local commissioner could be appointed at the expenses of the petitioner, who would straightaway proceed to the premises and report about its actual user. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not amenable to this. As a matter of fact, after some time, be candidly admitted that presently the premises were being used for commercial purposes.

5. Considering that the respondent in three inspections had earlier found p2 the premises to be used for residential and commercial purposes and the position as to its present use, was not being disputed by counsel for the petitioner, no case is made out for entertaining the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in case petitioner completes the requisite formalities for grant of additional sanctioned load, respondent would duly consider the same.

7. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.