Manoj Metal Works vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited
2009 Latest Caselaw 3868 Del

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 6919/2007 & CM No.13137/2007

                             Date of decision: 20th September, 2007

       MANOJ METAL WORKS                        ... Petitioner
                  through: Mr. Virender Rawat, Advocate

                                 VERSUS

       BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED               ....Respondent

through: Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the occupant of the

premises no.9/2442, Gali No.13, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar,

Delhi who claims that he is the sole proprietor of M/s Manoj

Metal Work. It is the case of the petitioner that he had got an

electricity connection sanctioned as back as in 1972 with a

sanctioned load of 7.05 H.P. for industrial purposes. This

connection is of three phase and heavy motors are being run

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.1 therefrom for the purpose of moulding and pressing of caps. It

is submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has

not committed any illegality for almost 35 years.

2. The petitioner assails the action of the respondent who

claim to have allegedly conducted an inspection of the

premises on 16th January, 2007. The petitioner contends that

the respondent in fact inspected the premises of his son Shri

Manoj Kumar who is carrying on independent business in a

separate premises without any connection with either the

petitioner or his family or the petitioner's business. Shri Manoj

Kumar is stated to have been sanctioned a commercial

electricity connection with a sanctioned load of 4.00 K.W. in his

own name.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

who is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in raising a

bill dated 25th January, 2007 on false allegations of the theft of

electricity by the petitioner whereby a demand of Rs.9,95,634/-

has been made. The challenge inter alia has been raised on

grounds of violation of the statutory provisions of Section 126

of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as failure of the respondent

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.2 to follow the Regulations 25-26 laid down by the Delhi

Electricity Regulation Commission. In any case, the petitioner

contends that such a bill and the disconnection of the electricity

could not have been carried out by the respondent without

issuance of notice to show cause and grant of opportunity to

the petitioner to place his case before the respondents.

4. Inasmuch as the respondents removed the meter of the

petitioner, he was deprived of electricity and faced a hostile

situation of threat of arrest. In addition, the petitioner has been

compelled to make payment of a total sum of Rs.4,40,000/-

between 30th April, 2007 & 20th August, 2007. These payments

have been made under protest in terms of the communication

dated 26th February, 2007 as sent by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Arun Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent on advance notice, has vehemently contested the

present writ petition. It has been pointed out that the

petitioner is agitating purely disputed questions of facts relating

to the inspection which was carried out by the respondent. It

has further been urged that the statutory provisions and

regulations relied upon by the petitioner, have no applicability

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.3 on the facts of the instant case. Mr. Gupta contends that

inasmuch as in the the present case the respondents have

found that the petitioner was indulging in direct theft, no notice

to show cause was required to be given. My attention has been

drawn to certain recoveries purportedly effected by the

respondent in support of the contention that the petitioner was

indulging in direct theft.

6. The petitioner, however, vehemently disputes these

contentions of the respondent.

7. Be that as it may, having regard to the entire conspectus

of facts and questions raised by both sides, it is evident that

several disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided

without evidence, have been raised. The issue as to whether

the inspection conducted by the respondent was not in

premises of M/s Manoj Metal Works; the ownership and load of

the machines; the disputes with regard to the evaluation of the

connected load by the respondent, are all disputed questions of

fact which cannot be adjudicated upon without leading

evidence by the parties in support of their respective

contentions.

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.4

8. The petitioner has disputed recovery of any material which

has been alleged by the respondent in the alleged report dated

16th January, 2007. In these circumstances, the respondent

would be required to prove both the inspection as well as the

correctness of the statement made therein in appropriate

proceedings.

9. It has been stated that the respondent is in the process of

evaluating the case of the petitioner and taking further

proceedings in accordance with law against him. In these

circumstances, such proceedings would be commenced before

the court having jurisdiction in accordance with law. Such

court would have the jurisdiction under Section 154(5) and

other provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 to adjudicate upon

the liabilities, both civil or criminal, of the consumer, if any. It

is also open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedies for

assailing the alleged inspection; the action of the respondent in

raising the bill as well as the theft assessment by the

respondent in appropriate civil proceedings wherein he would

have an option to prove his contention.

10. However, inasmuch as the electricity of the petitioner

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.5 stands disconnected and the respondent has removed the

meter, in my view appropriate directions for resumption of the

electricity supply would be warranted in the interests of justice.

Undoubtedly, the proceedings which respondent may initiate

or the proceedings which the petitioner may initiate before the

Civil Court, may be time consuming. The petitioner in the

instant case has already deposited a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- with

the respondent against the demand of Rs.9,95,634/-.

Consequently, in order to balance equities and to do justice

between the parties, without prejudice to the respective rights

and contentions of both parties and without in any manner

adjudicating upon the respective contention by the parties, it is

directed that subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of

Rs.60,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, the

respondent shall forthwith restore the electricity connection

bearing K. No1220R2010241. Needless to say, the petitioner

would be required to complete all commercial formalities.

Steps towards such completion of such formalities be

completed immediately on the passing of this order. The

petitioner shall also be liable to make payment of current

WP (C) No.6919/2007 Page No.6 charges.

11. In view of the order recorded today, the respondent shall

not insist on payment of the balance amount of the bill which

was due on 25th January, 2007 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner

shall be liable to make payment of all current charges which

are demanded by the respondent for the electricity consumed.

This writ petition and application are disposed of in the

above terms.

Dasti.

                                            (GITA MITTAL)
                                                JUDGE
September 18, 2007
aa




  WP (C) No.6919/2007                     Page No.7