Delhi High Court
Ms Charumati Sharma vs B S E S & Ors on 29 January, 2020
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.01.2020
+ CRL.M.C. 4988/2017
MS CHARUMATI SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
versus
B S E S & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Femandes, Standing
Counsel for BSES-RPL with Ms.
Anju Thomas and Ms. Priyansha
Indra Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. 2063/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET.38/2020
3. Vide the present application, the applicant in person seeks review of
order dated 20.11.2019 whereby this court admitted the petition and it was
directed to be listed on its own turn. The present application is not for
review, however, it is for early hearing of the petition.
4. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated in the present application,
it is allowed and disposed of to that extent.
Crl.M.C.4988/2017
5. With the consent of the petitioner in person and counsel for
respondent-BSES, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
6. Vide the present petition, the petitioner prays for directions as under:
i. That the honourable Delhi High Court may use its savings
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and /or revisionary
powers under section 296 Cr.P.C., to Stay Proceedings in the
biased and prejudiced against the complainant, special
electricity court Dwarka; and
ii. That the summoning orders issited by the Special Electricity
Court against the complainant are unfair and unjust, and
illegal and may be dismissed;
iii. That the above case of theft of electricity is not summonable
for the complainant has already attended court.
iv. That further the Delhi High Court may order that the arrest
or desire to arrest the self respecting lady advocate may be
stayed permanently.
v. That further the Delhi High Court may see that it is just and
fair to order that electricity be restored to the flat of the
complainant, with meter and the intervening bills issued to
justify this unjust interference in the recovery of an injured
under privileged female including the unfair and unjustified
theft of electricity bill is illegal and
vi. That further the Delhi High Court may see that it is just and
fair to order that the other bills and notices for non-payment
of bills which were not for electricity consumption but
charged for threat of repossessing electricity cables already
paid for to D.D.A. and D.E.S.U. are illegal;
vii. That the B.S .E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited has a duty to
restore all electricity wires laid by builders contractor for the
flat and restore their position to give honest electricity
through meter.
viii. That the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and its Enforcement
Directorate caused deliberate hindrance to electricity usage
for normal dignified life and work particularly teased the
complainant preventing recovery from injury and the State
and B.S.E.S may pay damages to compensate;
ix. That the honourable Delhi High Court may make orders as it
sees fit declaring that the Electricity Reforms Act and the
Electricity Act 2003 have enabled uncontrolled crimes
against the state and the innocent women and as such is
declared void and null.
7. Keeping in view the allegations and counter allegations made by the
parties and the age and circumstances of the petitioner, who is an old and
single lady and well-educated, vide order dated 15.11.2019, the Managing
Director of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. was directed to be present and assist
the court on the next date.
8. Consequently, on 20.11.2019, Mr.Sharad Pandey, Head Enforcement
(West) was present and stated that under the special powers , they can waive
of 50% of the theft charges, to which the petitioner did not agree. However,
this court tried to resolve the issue by stating that if they waive of
Rs.80,000/- towards theft charges and asked her to pay minimum amount of
Rs.500/- per month, which is less than the consumption charges of
electricity for use of at least two bulbs/lights. However, she clearly declined
and submits that she will not pay even a single penny and will only pay the
meter installation charges because she is without electricity since 2013.
9. Mr.Arvind Kumar Shukla and Ms.Kadambari, learned advocates are
present in court and have come forward with the proposition that as the
petitioner is an old and single lady, who is without electricity since 2013,
they are ready to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.500/- per month for 15
months). They further undertake that if any issue arises regarding the bill of
the electricity charges for the premises of the petitioner, the respondent-
BSES may contact them and they shall pay the electricity charges.
However, under no circumstance, BSES shall cut the electricity connection
of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, I hereby appreciate the gesture advanced by the counsels
named above and they are directed to pay Rs.6,000/- in favour of the
respondent-BSES within two days from the receipt of this order.
11. Respondent-BSES is directed to accept that amount by waiving of
other charges as a special case and this will not be considered as a precedent
in future in any other case.
12. It is made clear that on deposit of Rs.6,000/-, the respondent is
directed to restore her connection within two days thereafter.
13. It is further made it clear that except the consumption charges, no
other charges shall be asked from the petitioner. The petitioner has agreed to
this arrangement. Hereby, it is pertinent to mention that the directions issued
in the present petition are solely for substantial justice and on humanitarian
grounds, but not on the merits of the case.
14. In view of the above directions, the petition is disposed of.
15. Order dasti under signature of the Court Master.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2020
ab
