Delhi High Court
Lokesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd And Ors on 9 April, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 817/2012
Decided on: 9th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
LOKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aziz-ul-Hassan, Advocate with
petitioners No.1 & 2 in person.
Versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv. for R-1/BSES.
Ms. Kum Kum Jain, Adv. for R-2 with respondent
No.2 in person.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for directions to respondent No.1/BSES to complete the formalities for
installing an electricity meter at premises No.107/4, Street No.5, Krishna
Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, without awaiting a No Objection
Certificate from their brother, respondent No.2.
2. On the first date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners had
stated that a separate electricity connection was required to be installed
in one room each occupied by petitioners No.1 & 2 on the ground floor of
the subject premises. It was further stated by the counsel that he may
be permitted to amend the memo of parties by impleading all the legal
heirs of their deceased mother, Smt. Munni Devi, the erstwhile owner of
subject premises, who had expired in September, 1989, apart from Shri
Naresh Kumar Gupta, who had already been arrayed in the memo of
parties as respondent No.2. Leave, as prayed for, was granted and the
petitioners were permitted to file an amended memo of parties.
Simultaneously, notice was issued to respondent No.2, returnable on
5.3.2012.
3. On 5.3.2012, appearance was entered on behalf of
respondent No.2. On the said date, counsel for the petitioners had stated
that No objection by way of affidavits had been filed by respondents No.3
to 7, who were impleaded as co-respondents in the present proceedings
in terms of the amended memo of parties. As counsel for respondent
No.2 had stated that there was some previous litigation pending between
the petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to the subject premises,
she was directed to file a brief affidavit, with an advance copy to the other
side.
4. The affidavit has not been filed by respondent No.2. However,
learned counsel states that the same is ready and she hands over a copy
thereof, with an advance copy to the other side. The said affidavit is
taken on record. As per respondent No.2, the petitioners have deliberately
suppressed material facts inasmuch as they have failed to inform the
Court that both of them had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat in
March, 2011 with a request for grant of a new electricity connection in the
subject premises, and they stated before the said forum that their request
had been denied by respondent No.1/BSES due to objections raised by
respondent No.2. Copies of the proceedings dated 25.3.2011, 29.4.2011
and 6.5.2011, initiated by petitioners No.1 and 2, are enclosed as
Annexure-F & F-1 with the affidavit. A perusal of the said proceedings
reveal that after considering the submission made by the petitioners,
notice was issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the respondents No.1
and 2 and thereafter, the matter was discussed between the parties who
had sought time to arrive at an amicable settlement. However, thereafter
both the petitioners abruptly stopped appearing before the Permanent Lok
Adalat and consequently their petitions came to be dismissed in default on
6.5.2011.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that at
the relevant time, the discussions between the parties were for the
petitioners to pay their share of the electricity dues that were being borne
by respondent No.2 alone in respect of the electricity connection installed
at the subject premises as their portion of the premises was also
energized through the same connection. She submits that the said
connection was earlier installed in the premises in the name of Lt.Smt.
Munni Devi and in the year 2000, it was transferred in the name of
respondent No.2. She contends that instead of paying their share of the
demand raised for the electricity consumed by them to the respondent
No.2, the petitioners suddenly backed off and stopped appearing before
the Permanent Lok Adalat and that the details of the aforesaid
proceedings have been deliberately withheld in the present petition so as
to keep the Court in the dark.
6. When confronted with the aforesaid position, counsel for the
petitioners concedes on instructions from his clients that the aforesaid
proceedings did take place before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and he
further seeks to explain the non-mentioning thereof in the present
petition as a bonafide mistake. He also denies the submission made by
counsel for the respondent No.2 that no amount was being paid by the
petitioners to the respondent No.2 for the electricity consumed by them.
Instead, it is asserted that certain amounts were regularly paid to the
respondent No.2 in cash.
7. The Court declines to accept the aforesaid explanation offered
by the petitioners. The petitioners cannot deny the fact that they had
approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for the same relief as they are
seeking in the present petition, and that they had on their own stopped
appearing before the said forum ever since May 2011. It is not denied
that talks of settlement for arriving at an amicable settlement were
initiated between the petitioners and respondent No.2 before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, but were not followed up by the petitioners. It
was thus incumbent on them to have revealed the material facts in the
present petition.
8. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that
both the petitioners have been paying 1/3rd share each to the respondent
No.2 in respect of the electricity bills raised by respondent No.1/BSES is
not substantiated by any proof of payment or any receipts issued by
respondent No.2 in respect of monies allegedly received from the
petitioners for the electricity consumed by them. The Court is, therefore,
skeptical about the claim of the petitioners that they had been making
payments in cash to the respondent No.2 when admittedly, they have
been in litigation with respondent No.2 in respect of the subject premises.
9. A bare perusal of the petition shows that the petitioners have
not revealed the factum of the legal proceedings initiated by them before
the Permanent Lok Adalat much less the adverse orders suffered by them
in the petition for grant of letters of Administration with respect to
moveable/immoveable assets left by Lt. Smt.Munni Devi filed by
petitioner No.2 before the District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2009, a copy whereof has been
enclosed by the respondent No.2 alongwith his affidavit. The petitioners
have also failed to mention the fact that in the year 2002, alongwith the
other legal heirs of Lt. Smt. Munni Devi, they too had filed a civil suit for
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent
No.2 in respect of a will left by the deceased, whereunder, she had
bequeathed the subject property exclusively in favour of the respondent
No.2, which proceeding is stated to have been stayed by the Civil Judge.
10. In view of the fact that the petitioners have approached the
Court with unclean hands and have deliberately withheld material
information, including all the past litigations between them and
respondent No.2, which relates to the subject premises, wherein the
petitioners now seek directions to the respondent No.1/BSES RPL Ltd. to
install a new electricity connection in their favour, this Court declines to
entertain the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with
costs of `10,000/- imposed on the petitioners to be paid jointly to the
respondent No.2 within four weeks. In case of failure on the part of the
petitioners to place on record the proof of payment of costs to the
respondent No.2, the Registry is directed to place the matter before the
Court.
(HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 09, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
