Parveen Bansal vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 3405 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) 2840/2012 & C.M. No.6142/2012

                                             Date of Decision: 21st May, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF

PARVEEN BANSAL                                             ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Jha, Advocate with
                        Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.


                  versus

TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.                 ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Advocate with
                   Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the
                   respondent/TPDDL.


CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. Counsel for the respondent states that he has obtained

instructions from the Department regarding the reasons for the delay in

enhancement of the load at the premises of the petitioner from 10 KW to 99

KW. He submits that the respondent intends to enhance the load but the

delay is being caused on account of the fact that the existing transfer of the

respondent/company, through which the electricity is being transmitted, has

already reached its peak capacity and would be unable to take the additional

load. This has occasioned the need for replacement of the existing

transformer with one of adequate capacity. He submits that under the

Regulations, a period of 120 days is envisaged for grant of a connection for

enhanced load in cases where the transformer is replaced. In this context,

he refers to Regulation 17 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and

Performance Standard Regulations 2007 and states that the petitioner's load

shall be duly enhanced within 120 days. Counsel further states that as far

as the present case is concerned, the outer limit of 120 days prescribed

under the Regulation 17 may be taken from the date on which the payment

has been made for enhancement of the load, which is admittedly

21.04.2012.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press

this petition any further in view of the statement of the counsel for the

respondent, which is acceptable to his client, without prejudice to his

contention that in fact, the matter falls under the Sr.No.2 of Table I attached

to Regulation 17 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance

Standard Regulations 2007, which prescribes 60 days, and not under

Sr.No.3 of the said table, which prescribes 120 days. He submits that his

client would be satisfied even if the needful is done within 120 days

regardless of the provision in the Table I attached to Regulation 17.

3. Under these circumstances, the statement of respondent's

counsel on behalf of the respondent is accepted by this Court and the

petition is disposed of in terms thereof.

DASTI to the respondent.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MAY 21, 2012 rkb