Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas Goel vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 25 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
07
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7428/2009
RAM NIWAS GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv.
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. .... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Fernandes and Mr. Rajat
Jariwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 25.02.2010
1. The petitioner's contention is that the dispute with the respondent,
discom was settled and compromised before the permanent Lok Adalat-II. In this
connection, my attention is drawn to the paragraph 6 of the petition filed before
the Lok Adalat, in which reference is made to inspection of the premises of the
petitioner in the last week of February-2005. In this application, the petitioner
had prayed for restoration of the electricity connection, which was lying
disconnected since October-November, 2003 due to non-payment of dues and
thereafter removal of meter. It was further stated by the petitioner that
outstanding amount in October-November, 2003 of Rs, 32,800/- was
subsequently paid by the petitioner. In view of the application filed by the
petitioner, the electricity connection of the petitioner was restored.
2. The respondent, discom in the counter affidavit have stated that on 17th
WPC No.7428/2009 Page 1
February, 2005, the Division Enforcement Inspection Team, as per the report, had
found that the petitioner was indulging in direct theft of electricity by way of
illegal tapping directly from the service line. Counsel for the petitioner during the
course of arguments disputed the said inspection. However, learned counsel for
the respondent, discom has drawn my attention to photographs filed with the
counter affidavit. My attention is drawn to the notings and the date, which are
clearly visible in the said photographs.
3. It appears that after the said inspection on 17th February, 2005, the
respondent, discom did not raise any bill and have not initiated any action under
the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. A demand for Rs. 2,54,284/- was raised for the first time in the monthly
bill payable on or before 2nd February, 2009. This was followed by another bill
with due date 17th March, 2009 for Rs. 4,41,183/- inclusive of late payment
surcharge. The later bill has been categorized as 'bill for theft of electricity'.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent cannot
raise this demand after a gap of four year from the date of inspection. It is stated
that the respondent-discom has not initiated proceedings under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, 2005.
6. Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent
states that they shall be initiating proceedings before the special Court under
Sectin 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner will like to contest the said proceedings, if they are filed and
WPC No.7428/2009 Page 2
he does not want to settle the matter.
7. The petitioner was granted stay in his favour from disconnection of the
electricity vide order dated 27th March, 2008. The said order continues till today.
The said interim order will continue till further orders, but will be subject to
orders, which may be passed by the special Court on a complaint filed by the
respondent, discom. In case no complaint is filed and/or this order is not
modified by the special Court, the electricity connection of the petitioner will not
be disconnected for non-payment of the electricity bill issued pursuant to the
inspection dated 17th February, 2005. The petitioner and the respondent will be
entitled to raise all pleas and contentions before the special Court. It is clarified
that the Special Court will independently apply their mind and will not be
influenced by any observation made in this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
FEBRUARY 25, 2010 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NA/VKR
WPC No.7428/2009 Page 3
