Smt. Santosh Kumari vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 2657 Del

$~6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              W.P.(C) 2846/2018 & CM No.11535/2018

%                              Date of decision : 27th April, 2018

       SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI                              ..... Petitioner
                     Through :            Ms. Neha Garg, Adv. along with
                                          petitioner in person.
                     versus
       TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION
       LTD. AND ORS.                        ... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. R.S. Lathwal, Adv. for R-1.
                               Ms. Renuka Arora and
                               Mr. Sumit Rana, Advs. for R-
                               2/DSIDC.
                               Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Standing
                               Counsel for North DMC with
                               Mr. Kamlesh Anand and Ms.
                               Yamini Mittal, Advs. for R-3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. The original record of the DSIDC - respondent no.2 relating to the petitioner has been produced before us.

2. It appears that the DSIDC had allotted an industrial plot under the relocation scheme of industries to M/s Prakash Art Press, a business which was being run by Late Shri Prem Prakash, the deceased husband of the petitioner.

3. The DSIDC had processed the request for substitution of the petitioner's name in place of her deceased husband. However, in terms

of the relocation scheme, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit regarding closing of the business at the existing location which is a non-conforming area. The petitioner appears to have addressed a letter dated 12th April, 2010 refusing to submit such undertaking.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Renuka Arora, ld. counsel for the DSIDC - respondent no.2 that subject to the petitioner submitting such undertaking, the DSIDC would process the file within a period of three weeks thereafter. Let the same be so done.

5. It is stated by Ms. Neha Garg, ld. counsel for the petitioner, on instruction by the petitioner - Smt. Santosh Kumari, that the petitioner shall take the steps in this regard within four days from today. Let the same be so done.

6. In order to enable the petitioner to take steps to close the existing unit, the respondent no.1 may restore the electricity to the premises of the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today.

7. In view of the above directions, the prayers made in this writ petition stand satisfied. No further orders are therefore, called for in this writ petition.

8. This writ petition as well as the pending application are disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 27, 2018/aj