Delhi High Court
Babita vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited And ... on 28 May, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 28th May, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 5537/2015
BABITA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ajay Gulati, Adv
Versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED
AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Manish Srivastava,
Adv. for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No.9951/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ W.P.(C) No. 5537/2015
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby
directing the respondent no. 1 to install a fresh electricity
connection for supplying electricity to the 3 rd floor of the premises
bearing House No. C-389, Shiv Gali, Punjabi Bazar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on
advance notice submits that they have no objection to grant the
electricity connection in favour of the petitioner, provided the
petitioner pay all the electricity dues regarding the premises
mentioned above.
3. 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.
4. In addition, in W.P.(C) 875/2015, titled as Baljinder Singh v.
CEO, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., while allowing the petition, this
court inter alia passed similar directions.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been residing in the
premises mentioned above and is in possession thereof. Therefore,
notice to respondent no.2 has not been issued.
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) She 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 subject to her
vacating the premises or any eviction order is passed against her
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 contentions of the parties.
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, if any.
12. In view of the above terms, the present petition is allowed
with no order as to costs.
13. Dasti to both the parties.
CM. NO. 9950/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 28, 2015
rb/jg
