Delhi High Court
Sh.Gurdeep Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. on 11 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 740/2014 & C.M.No.12917-12918/2014
% AUGUST 11, 2014
SH.GURDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Baljeet Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugning the order of the First Appellate Court dated 06.6.2014 by which
the First Appellate Court directed that if the petitioner/plaintiff wants an
electricity connection, then besides paying the bill towards normal arrears,
the petitioner shall also pay 50% charges of the assessment bill dated
21.5.2014 raised for direct theft of electricity of Rs.1,55,855/-.
2. Surely, electricity companies cannot be directed to give electricity
connections once pending arrears/amounts/dues on of account direct theft
are alleged to exist, inasmuch as, if connections are granted inspite of charges
towards electricity theft having not being paid, the same would mean that
persons would consume electricity illegally, get a electricity connection,
thereafter get it disconnected for non-payment of dues, and again ask for a
fresh electricity connection inspite of not paying the dues towards the old
electricity connection.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case of theft has yet
to be proved, however, I note that the First Appellate Court has only directed
payment of 50% of the assessment bill, and has not asked to pay 100% of
the assessment bill. An electricity company/respondent no.1 cannot be
legally called upon to give a fresh connection, although an assessment bill
for direct theft is due and not paid.
4. At this stage, I may note that it cannot be disputed that the petitioner
was using electricity though the electricity connection against which an
assessment bill of direct theft has been raised, inasmuch as except that
electricity connection, there was no other electricity connection in the
building. The fact that the electricity connection was being used by the wife
of the present petitioner/plaintiff, and in whose name the assessment bill has
been raised, cannot be very seriously disputed, because except one
electricity connection, there was no other electricity connection for
supplying electricity to the entire building and in part of which building the
petitioner and his wife are staying.
5. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are
discretionary and are meant to be exercised only where grave injustice is
caused, and which is not so in this case. In fact, in my opinion, the First
Appellate Court has been liberal towards the petitioner in directing payment
of only 50% of direct theft assessment bill.
6. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order dated
06.6.2014, and the petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 11, 2014
KA
