Delhi High Court
Shri Saxena Through Natural Gurdian vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 30 July, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~30.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 706/2024 & CM APPL. 42706/2024, CM APPL. 42707/2024
CM APPL. 42708/2024
SHRI SAXENA THROUGH NATURAL GURDIAN.....Appellant
Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr.
Shiv Kumar Saxena.
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harshal Arora, Mr. Raghav
Awasthi, Advs. for BSES.
% Date of Decision: 30th July, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
21st June, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8670/2024,
whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant seeking restoration of
electricity supply of second floor and ground floor of the property bearing
No. G-64(105), Gali No. 20-22, Rajapuri Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-
110059, was allowed subject to payment of arrears of electricity charges by
the Appellant within a period of 15 days.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Ld. Single Judge
failed to appreciate the fact that the CA No. 103389492 with respect to
which direction for restoration of electricity was passed pertains to the first
floor of the property with respect to which the Appellant had sought
restraining order from disconnecting the electricity connection. She states
that the Ld. Single Judge did not pass any order regarding restoration of
electricity connection of second floor and ground floor of the property. She
further states that the Ld. Single Judge also failed to appreciate the fact that
despite zero dues with respect to second floor, electricity connection was
nevertheless disconnected by the Respondent.
3. She states that the Appellant has been unable to pay the arrears on
account of failure of the Respondent in transferring the old electricity
connection in the name of the Appellant's father or give him new
connections despite multiple representations.
4. In response to pointed queries, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions of the appellant states
that the dues in question do not pertain to the appellant and that the appellant
has a dispute with a property broker which is pending adjudication in a civil
suit.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is a consent order
inasmuch as, the appellant had agreed to clear dues of Rs. Two Thousand
Thirty (Rs.2030) pertaining to CA No. 103389492 within fifteen days.
Further upon deposit of the said amount, the appellant was to receive supply
of electricity on all the floors of the suit property.
6. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. Two Thousand Thirty (Rs.2030) has
not been paid.
7. Also the number of the meter had been furnished by learned counsel
for the appellant/ petitioner on instructions from the petitioner. It was on this
basis that the learned Single Judge had passed the impugned order and
directed restoration of the electricity connection.
8. This Court is of the view that the appellant/ petitioner cannot take
advantage of his own wrong in the event the CA Number has been wrongly
mentioned in the impugned order as it was based on the statement given by
learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner.
9. In any event, the dispute between the appellant/ petitioner and the
property broker cannot be resolved in writ proceedings and that too behind
the back of the alleged property broker. Accordingly, the present appeal
being bereft of merits is dismissed.
10. However, the appellant is given liberty to file appropriate proceedings
in accordance with law.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 30, 2024
N.Khanna
