Delhi High Court
Lokesh Gupta vs N.D.P.L. on 26 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8085/2009
LOKESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra and Ms. Sonali
Malhotra, Advocates with
petitioner in person.
versus
NDPL ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Manish
Srivastava and Mr. Diwakar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
26.3.2010
1. Ms. Vandana Malik, Advocate is present in Court and has
produced court diary for the calendar year 2009. She reiterates that
she was contacted by Mr. Lokesh Gupta to appear before the Delhi
Legal Service Authority and settle the matter with the respondent,
NDPL.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the
signatures on the application form etc. do not match and are completely
different from the signatures of the petitioner in the writ petition as
well as on the passport. Ms. Vandana Malik states that the papers
including Vakalatnama were collected from her chamber in Tis Hazari
Court by an associate of Mr. Lokesh Gupta who had accompanied Mr.
Lokesh Gupta, when they met her outside the premises of the
permanent Lok Adalat.
3. Counsel for the respondent, discom has produced before me
photocopy of the file maintained by them. The petitioner along with
his application for new connection had submitted copy of his
passport. As per the application form, copy of the election card was
not filed. In the passport of the petitioner, the address mentioned is
House No.212, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-41. The election identity card bears a
different address i.e. House No.91, Village Tikri Kalan, New Delhi.
Photocopy of the election identity card was filed along with the
application form submitted before the Delhi Legal Services Authority.
4. At this stage, counsel for the parties states that the disputed
settlement recorded on 8th September, 2008, may be treated as
cancelled with right to the parties to agitate their grievances in
accordance with law before appropriate authority. This will mean
that the petitioner will have the right to challenge the inspection
report and the subsequent bills raised by the respondent, discom
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
5. In view of the said statement, the settlement agreement is
quashed and set aside by mutual consent of the parties. It is clarified
that the period between 9th July, 2008 till 26th March, 2010, will not
be counted for the purpose of limitation in any proceedings initiated
by the petitioner or the respondent, discom.
6. Possibly one way to ensure that there is no controversy and
doubt is to ask each consumer to produce the original document
before the photocopy of the said identity document is placed on
record. The original document should be produced before the Delhi
Legal Services Authority or the Presiding Officer concerned and
returned after verification. This fact should be mentioned in the
order sheet.
The writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 26, 2010
NA/VKR
