Delhi High Court
Bhagwat Dayal Vashisht vs Bses Limited & Another on 15 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11956/2009
% Date of decision : 15th February, 2010
BHAGWAT DAYAL VASHISHT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Prakash Gautam, advocate.
versus
BSES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rajat Jariwal, advocate for BSES
Mr.Rana Mukherjee, Ms.Seema Sharma,
advocates for intervenor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
1. The petitioner claims interest in shop no. C-2, Hari Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi on the basis of documents like Agreement to
Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. executed on 13 th December,
1995 by one Mr.Randhir Singh. It is further stated that the said
Mr.Randhir Singh had purchased the property from Mr.Sarjeet Singh,
brother of respondent no.2-Mr.Raj Kumar Chokan again on the basis
of Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, etc.
2. There is dispute between the petitioner and the respondent
no.2 about ownership of the said shop. Mr.Sarjeet Singh, brother of
respondent no.2 has also filed an application in this Court claiming
that he had not sold the said shop to Mr.Randhir Singh and he was/is
not the owner of the said shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the two brothers are now colluding and conniving with
each other.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention
WPC No.11956/2009 Page 1
that he is the owner of the said shop has relied upon Agreement to
Sell, Power of Attorney, etc which were purportedly executed in
December, 1995. He also relies upon electricity connection which
was issued in the name of the petitioner way back in November
2007. He relies upon demand note dated 17th November, 2007 and
electricity bills issued thereafter. Petitioner also relies upon
photographs filed at page 36 of the paper book. Thus it is submitted
that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the shop. He
submits that the order passed in writ petition no. 991/2009 filed by
Mr.Raj Kr. Chokan which was disposed of on 24th July, 2009 cannot
be relied upon by the respondent as the said order was passed
behind the back of the petitioner and without his knowledge. He
submits that the petitioner had filed an application in the said writ
petition and he was asked to seek appropriate remedy in
accordance vide order dated 25th August, 2009. Therefore the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. It is stated that a civil litigation is pending between the
applicant-Mr.Sarjeet singh and the petitioner and the question of
transfer/ownership of the said shop is pending adjudication. This
Court is not concerned with the civil suit or the question of title. It is
clarified that all issues with regard to the genuineness and
authenticity of the documents which are being relied upon, is left
open.
5. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
and subject to orders which will be passed by the Civil Court, it is
held that the petitioner is at liberty to apply for pre-paid electricity
connection on furnishing indemnity bond, so that no liability or
charge is fastened on the property. On an application being made
by the petitioner for obtaining a pre-paid electricity connection
along with indemnity bond, the same will be considered and decided
expeditiously by the respondent-discom in accordance with law.
Issue of pre-paid connection will not confer any right on the parties
WPC No.11956/2009 Page 2
and will not entitle any party to disturb possession of the other. This
order is being passed as the petitioner had obtained and was issued
electricity connection in 2007. Thereafter, even electricity bills were
issued and paid by the petitioner. This electricity connection was
disconnected without notice to the petitioner and without any
hearing. The petitioner is entitled to status quo in respect of the
electricity connection.
6. It is open to the applicant-Mr.Sarjeet Singh to move the Civil
court for interim order in respect of possession or right to
possession. He can also pray for disconnection of electricity
connection before the Civil Court.
7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the question of title and genuineness of documents, possession and
in respect of the criminal investigation which is stated to be
pending. This Order is subject to the further orders which may be
passed by the Civil Court in the main suit or any interim application.
It will be open to the parties to rely upon the result of the criminal
investigation.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
DASTI.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2010
P
WPC No.11956/2009 Page 3
