Delhi High Court
Raj Pal Singh vs The Executive Engineer, Bypl & Anr on 28 January, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th January, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7666/2009
RAJ PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Chauhan, Advocate
Versus
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BYPL & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K. Datta, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Ms. Diya Kapur, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether 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 NO
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner claims to be a resident of house situated on Khasra
No.165, Chankya Marg, Chhajupur Road, Shahdara, Delhi. This writ
petition has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondent No.1 BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd. and the respondent No.2 MCD to remove and
dismantle the transformer installed abutting the premises of the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that the transformer poses a danger not only
to the petitioner and his family members but also to the others in the
congested locality. It is further stated that the t-irons of the transformer are
embedded in the wall of the premises of the petitioner.
2. Notice of the petition was issued.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.1 BYPL has contended that the
said transformer has been in existence at the same place for the last more
than 20 years i.e. since the time prior to the unbundling of the erstwhile
Delhi Vidyut Board which was part of the respondent No.2 MCD.
4. The counsel for the respondent No.2 MCD states that no permission
has been obtained by the respondent No.1 BYPL for installation of the said
transformer.
5. Since the only reason why the petitioner seeks removal of the
transformer is owing to the hazard posed by it, attention of the counsel for
the petitioner is invited to the judgment dated 19th January, 2011 in
W.P.(C) No.5885/2010 titled Rajesh Mehra Vs. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power
Ltd. where on examination of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003
and Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it was held that the alternative
efficacious remedy in such a situation is provided under Section 162 read
with Section 185(2)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rules 29 &
52 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, before the Electrical Inspector of
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Appeal is also provided for, against the order
of the Electrical Inspector to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is not felt
necessary to reproduce the provisions in this judgment.
6. Even otherwise the Electrical Inspector is better equipped to
determine as to whether the aforesaid electrical equipment poses any
danger / hazard or not. If the Electrical Inspector finds that the same poses
a danger / hazard, the same would necessarily have to be removed or steps
be taken to bring it in conformity with the safety standards as may be
suggested. Else, if the Electrical Inspector finds that the installation is not
hazardous, the petitioner cannot seek removal thereof at least on the
grounds as claimed in the present petition.
7. The petition is therefore disposed of with the reference of the
grievance of the petitioner to the Electrical Inspector of the Govt. of NCT
of Delhi. The parties to appear before the Electrical Inspector at 1500
hours on 24th February, 2011 and on such further dates as may be fixed.
The parties shall have liberty to file besides the documents filed before this
Court, other documents / pleadings also before the Electrical Inspector.
The Electrical Inspector to conduct the enquiry and submit the report on or
before 30th July, 2011. Needless to state that the petitioner shall have his
remedies in accordance with law if dissatisfied with the orders / report of
the Electrical Inspector.
No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 28th, 2011
'gsr'
