Delhi High Court
Kishore Kumar Kaul vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. on 9 December, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#2
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 212/2010 & CM 5678/2010
KISHORE KUMAR KAUL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jayanth Nath, Senior
Advocate with Mr. B.C. Pandey
and Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocates
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.S. Lamba with Mr. Rishabh
Bhutani, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Advocate
for R-2.
Mr. Rajeshwar Dagar, Advocate
for R-3.
% Date of Decision: December 09, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J :
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 15th February, 2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11437/2009 wherein the Court refused to pass
direction to shift the electric transformer installed outside the petitioner-
appellant's residence at Bhawani Kunj, behind D-II, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi - 110 070.
2. In fact, the learned Single Judge after taking note of the Indian
Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short "Rules, 1956"), the fact that the
transformer in question had been installed in 2001 and the petitioner-
appellant's house was situated in an unauthorised colony, only directed
the respondent no. 1-BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to ensure that the
transformer did not pose any safety risk or danger to the property of the
petitioner-appellant and further that the petitioner-appellant did not
suffer because of loose/open/cut cables in the transformer.
3. Mr. Jayanth Nath, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant
submitted that the transformer had been installed in violation of Rules
63(3) and 64(2) of the Rules, 1956. He further contended that the
transformer posed a grave danger to the appellant as well as to his
property.
4. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents
we are of the view that no mandatory direction can be passed for
shifting of the transformer as requisite statutory permission under Rule
63(3) of the Rules, 1956 has been obtained by the respondent no. 1-
BSES from an electrical inspector.
5. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge's directions
in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned order sufficiently protect and
safeguard the interest of the appellant.
6. However, as the Resident Welfare Association, respondent no. 3
has suggested an alternative location for installation of the electric
transformer, we are of the opinion that the said suggestion should be
furnished to the respondent no. 1-BSES who would consider the said
suggestion from all spectrums including whether the alternative
location is technically, economically and practically feasible. We may
clarify that we have neither directed shifting of electronic transformer
nor expressed any opinion on the suggestion of Resident Welfare
Association as the appellant's house is situated in an unauthorised
colony and we are not clear as to the title of the land which is being
suggested as an alternative location for shifting of the electric
transformer.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present appeal and
application are disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 09, 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE
rn
