Delhi High Court
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Deepak Saran on 29 April, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 29th April, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 4283/2015
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Manish
Srivastava and Mr. Rahul
Malhotra, Advocates.
Versus
DEEPAK SARAN ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 4283/2015 & CM Nos. 7771/2015 & 7772/2015
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order
dated 01.12.2014 passed in Appeal No. F./ELECT/
Ombudsman/2014/614.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that during the joint inspection dated 18.06.2014, respondent agreed to
pay the requisite and estimated charges for shifting the electric pole
from one place to another. Despite, the learned Ombudsman held that
since numbers of other consumers are getting electricity, therefore, the
respondent alone is not responsible to pay the charges.
3. In the impugned order, it is recorded that a few meetings were
held and even a joint inspection was carried out and there appeared to
be an agreement on both sides. Afterwards the DISCOM sent a
demand note of Rs.4.72 lakhs which appeared exorbitant and not
commensurate with the work of shifting of one pole. It appeared that
apart from asking the respondent to deposit the said amount, lot of
riders were attached stating that NOC from various
Government/Private Agencies will have to be obtained for the work
which could further delay matters.
4. It is further recorded that another meeting was fixed to clarify
matters but no details of the estimate of Rs.4.72 lakhs for shifting of
pole were given. After further postponement, meeting was held on
24.09.2014 but no final decision could be arrived at as the person
representing DISCOM showed his inability to finalize most of the
issues under consideration and claimed only responsibility for
preparing the estimate.
5. During arguments before the learned Ombudsman, DISCOM
was asked to clarify the issue whether an individual resident can be
asked to pay for moving a pole outside his premises when normally
such poles servicing multiple connections in any planned colony. It is
often the case that the initial infrastructures for electricity, including
poles, often have to be shifted from time to time till the final
distribution infrastructure is achieved. The overall expenditure on
upgrading infrastructure in planned colonies is expected to be added
up by DISCOM and made part of its ARR (Annual Revenue
Requirement) which is presented to the DERC for fixation of tariff
based on both fixed costs incurred in upgrading infrastructure and the
variable cost involved in buying and selling power.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Ombudsman
specifically recorded that the respondent offered to pay for shifting of
pole by 2 feet but the DISCOM need not have sent him an estimate of
Rs.19,162/- to begin with, which was later enhanced to Rs.4.72 lakhs
and the matter was delayed too for long.
7. The learned Ombudsman had seen the photographs of the
location to understand the issue, whereby established that pole cannot
continue to be at its present location and should be shifted towards the
common boundary of the two properties so as to be on one side.
8. Accordingly, the learned Ombudsman ordered that the
petitioner should shift the pole to the common boundary of the two
properties without seeking any cost from the respondent, even though
he was initially willing to pay a lower amount, and to recover this
expenditure through their overall recovery of capital costs through the
tariff fixation exercise carried out by the DERC. The offer of
respondent to pay, at the initial stage, goes to his credit and shows his
desperation to get the pole shifted but is now irrelevant as the cost has
gone up many times and each individual should not be asked to pay
for upgrading common infrastructure in the colony.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to take action within 21
days to initiate the process of the shifting of the pole and to carry out
the complete exercise within two months thereafter.
10. I note, the aforesaid order was passed on 01.12.2014. Till date,
no steps have been taken by the petitioner in this respect except filing
of the present petition and that is after more than four months.
11. In view of the facts recorded above, I do not find any merit in
the instant petition. Therefore, the same alongwith pending
applications stand dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 29, 2015
sb
