Delhi High Court
Baljinder Singh vs Ceo, Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. on 27 May, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27th May, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 875/2015
BALJINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Ms. Neetu
Singh, Advs.
versus
CEO, BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Raghav Chadha, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi and
Mr. Harish Sharma, Advs. for R2.
Mr. G.D. Mishra, Standing Counsel for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby directing
the respondent no. 1 to grant electricity connection in his name at C-301,
Mayur Dhwaj Apartment, Plot no.-60, I.P. Extension, Delhi - 92.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submits that
they have no objection to grant the electricity connection, but that is subject
to the settlement of the two theft bills raised against the said property.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 has objected the
instant petition and submits that the petitioner was caught earlier in a theft
case of electricity and he may again commit the same offence and
respondent no. 1 may raise the electricity bills against the premises of
respondent no. 2 / landlord.
4. Similar issue came before this Court in catena of cases. In W.P.(C)
554/2015, titled as Monika Tripathy v. Mukesh Kumar, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 19.03.2015 directed the Electricity Company to give
connection in the name of the petitioner therein.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the tenant of respondent no. 2 and
is in possession of the property in question.
6. In view of above, respondent no. 1 is directed to process the
petitioner's application for installation of fresh electricity connection
without insisting for 'No Objection Certificate' or title documents from the
petitioner. However, the petitioner shall have to complete all other
procedural and commercial formalities.
7. The petitioner is further directed to:
a) Clear all outstanding electricity dues as on date in respect of the
subject premises.
b) Deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent no. 1 towards
additional security.
c) He shall continue to pay the consumption charges as raised by
respondent no. 1 every month.
8. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 is directed not to adjust the
security amount against the current demand raised against the petitioner. It
shall refund the security amount, but that shall be subject to his vacating the
premises or any eviction order is passed against him subject to adjustment of
electricity dues, if any, on account of arrears. Respondent no.1 shall have
the right to disconnect the electricity in case current dues are not paid.
9. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions are without prejudice to the
rights and conditions of either of the parties in the Writ Petition.
10. It is further made clear that the present order of granting electricity
connection will not be treated as having conferred any ownership or title or
possessionary rights on the petitioner with regard to the subject premises.
11. It is further made clear that order passed by this Court shall not come
in the way of the Trial Court proceedings with the matters pending before it.
12. In view of the above terms, the present petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
13. Dasti to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 27, 2015
jg
