Delhi High Court
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd vs Jai Prakash Tyagi on 20 November, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on 20th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9923/2015
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manish Srivastava and
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates
versus
JAI PRAKASH TYAGI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Kumar, proxy counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A. K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has come to be filed seeking setting aside
of the order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Electricity 'Ombudsman'.
2. The impugned order came to be passed on an appeal filed by
the respondent seeking disconnection of the electricity connection
installed in the premises bearing Khasra No.16, Gali No.2, Sangam
Vihar, Village Wazirabad, Delhi, in short 'the property'.
3. It was the off-shoot of an issue agitated by the respondent as
regards the title/ownership of the property, where, the petitioner had
installed the electricity connection, in 'the property', in respect
whereof, dispute was pending adjudication before the SDM (Civil
Lines). 'Ombudsman' disposed off the subject matter, with the
observations and the directions, as follows:
"........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Since the entire process has taken almost one year from the
time that the appeal was filed, it is clear that the DISCOM had erred
in releasing the electricity connection before correctly identifying the
property in question. Since the appellant had to undergo difficulties
in approaching this forum as well as in finalizing petitions before the
CGRF, for the purpose, he needs to be compensated with an amount
of Rs.15,000/- which may be paid to him separately and the matter
closed.
The DISCOM is free to carry out any further exercise
required for identifying the correct property in case the application
for release of electric connection is still pending. This would be with
the help of concerned Revenue authorities who are to be involved in
this issue. However, this connection should be released after the
above due diligence to avoid further legal proceedings either in the
CGRF or before this forum. In future, in such cases, the assistance
of Revenue authorities should be sought in advance so that no
confusion arises."
During the course of hearing, Mr. Srivastava, ld. counsel for the
petitioner submits that though the directions given by the Ombudsman
vide the impugned order, as regards the release of electricity
connection, stand fully complied with, to which ld. counsel appearing
for the respondent concedes, the petition is pressed only as regards
the direction given by 'the Ombudsman' to the effect that, in future, in
such cases, the assistance of Revenue authorities should be sought in
advance, so that, no confusion arises. It is strenuously contended that
such procedure to be followed by the petitioner is beyond purview of
the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards
Regulations, 2007, in short 'the Regulations'. In the submissions of
Mr. Srivastava, ld. counsel for the petitioner, if, such directions are to
be followed in every case, it shall create serious practical difficulties,
besides, the question, as to who shall pay the expenses thereof. To
substantiate such plea, Mr. Srivastava draws advertence to
communication No.F.SDMC/CL/2015/2456 dated 07.07.2015,
whereunder, Tehsildar (Civil Line) has asked for deposit of charges
for Total Station Method (TSM), which is invited for demarcation.
4. Though, the impugned directions of 'the Ombudsman' ipso
facto, are widely worded to bring within its scope only some
exceptional cases of like nature, the direction, is, in effect, procedural
in nature only. Such procedural directions, even, if, are not embodied
in 'the Regulations', cannot be construed to be in violation thereof. In
that view of the matter, the impugned direction, in my considered
view, cannot be construed to be without jurisdiction. Simultaneously,
however, sight may not be lost of the fact that the exercise for the
purpose is to be undertaken by the revenue authority. Of course, it
would not be an easy exercise, especially, with regard to the
unauthorised colonies and it shall put an applicant seeking electricity
connection, a necessity for a good human living, to delay and great
hardship. In that view of the matter, the concern expressed by the
petitioner, invites redressal to a limited extent that such direction need
to be followed only in exceptional cases, where, the situation
seriously warrants.
5. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the
petition is disposed off with the modification to the impugned order to
the effect that the direction contained as regards the petitioner seeking
assistance of the Revenue authorities to be sought in advance so that
no confusion arises, should be construed liberally, and be followed, as
far as possible, where, the situation so strictly, warrants.
6. Petition as well as pending application stands disposed off
accordingly.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
nn
