Delhi High Court
M/S S.D.Technical Services P.L vs D.E.S.U. (D.V.B.) & Ors. on 24 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~18 & 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th March, 2025
+ LPA 1055/2006 & CM APPL. 7361/2006
M/S S.D.TECHNICAL SERVICES P.L .....Appellant
Through: None.
versus
D.E.S.U. (D.V.B.) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Meet Malhotra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil
Sharma and Ms. Simran Kohli,
Advocates for R-4.
19
+ LPA 1608/2006 & CM APPL. 9266/2006
KANWAL KISHORE MANCHANDA .....Appellant
Through: None.
versus
M.C.D & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava and Mr. Yash
Srivstava, Advocates for R-BSES-
RPL
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Prior to lunch, the Appellant's Counsel had sought an adjournment on
the ground that he has been recently engaged.
3. Considering this is a Letters Patent Appeal of 2006, the Court had asked
the Counsels to appear in the post lunch session.
4. In the post lunch session, Mr. Meet Malhotra, ld. Senior Counsel
appearing for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ('DESU') now Bombay
Suburban Electric Supply ('BSES') submits that any dues prior to 2002 cannot
be enforced by BSES. Hence the appeal can be allowed, due to the change in
circumstances.
5. Heard. None appears for the Appellants. These are two appeals filed
under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which have been filed assailing the
impugned order dated 17th April, 2006 passed by the ld. Single Judge.
6. The facts that can be gleaned from the said judgment are that the
Appellant- M/s S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., entered into a license
agreement with M/s. Ram Prakash Kanwal Kishore, which is stated to be a
partnership firm. The same conducted its business at the premises, bearing no.
B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi (hereinafter, the
'premises'). The said partnership firm was being run in one part of the
premises and the remaining portion was given to M/s S.D. Technical Services
Pvt. Ltd. The two firms had a common electricity connection and disputes
arose with respect to their respective electricity charges. Due to non-clearance
of electricity bills, the electricity supply for the premises was disconnected on
04th September, 1991 by the Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on 4th October,
1991 the Appellant discharged part liability by paying a sum of Rs. 85,000/-
to the Respondent No. 1 and subsequently, the electricity was restored.
However, due to the remaining unpaid dues not being paid to the Respondent
No. 1, it again disconnected their electricity supply on 3rd December, 1991.
7. In the meantime, M/s S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. approached the
Court by way of a W.P.(C) 121/1992 challenging the electricity
disconnection.
8. An interim order was granted to restore the electricity on 22nd May,
1992 subject to the payment of Rs.44,000/- by M/s S.D. Technical Services
Pvt. Ltd. to Respondent No. 1. The security for the remaining amount, which
was to be furnished, was repeatedly rejected by the Registrar and finally, the
DESU disconnected the electricity supply yet again.
9. Parallelly, in the suit, the dispute between the Respondents, Arora
family and M/s S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. continued. The firm, M/s
S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. was being fastened with the liability of
electricity.
10. In the meantime, certain partition disputes between the parties also
arose. Suit No. 3726/1990 was filed seeking Partition between the family
members of Mr. Arora.
11. The Arora family then filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 1732/1997
inter alia seeking a separate electricity connection. Further, vide the said
petition, Mr. Kamal Kishore prayed that the same may be provided without
clearance of dues of over Rs. 21,00,000/-. The Arora family had inter se
disputes, which then worsened the situation, insofar as the electricity dues
were concerned. In this background, the ld. Single Judge passed the impugned
order dated 17th April, 2006, directing as under:-
"86. I accordingly hold that M/s. S.D. Technical Services Pvt.
Ltd. is liable to clear all outstanding electricity dues pertaining to
the connection in question qua which a grievance has been raised
in WP(C) No.121/1992.
87. On the issue whether a Lok Adalat can return a reference
unanswered, needless to state when reference was made, Lok
Adalat functioning was not a statutory Lok Adalat. Even otherwise
where a dispute cannot be resolved by the Lok Adalat it would
have no option but to return the reference unanswered.
88. The 4 writ petitions stand disposed of as under :-
(A) WP(C) No. 121/1992 is dismissed holding that in
addition to the registered consumer and the successor in
interest, writ petitioner, M/s. S.D> Technical Services Pvt.
Ltd. is liable to clear the electricity dues as per bills raised
pursuant to the inspection dated 28.1.1991 in respect of
premises bearing municipal no. B-87 Mayapuri Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
(B) WP(C) No. 1732/1997 is dismissed.
(C) WP(C) 3728/1998 is dismissed.
(D) WP(C) 2883/2001 is dismissed
89. No costs."
12. Thus, only in one of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) 121/1992, partial
relief was granted. The remaining writ petitions being, W.P.(C) 1732/1997,
W.P.(C) 3728/1998 and W.P.(C) 2883/2001 were dismissed by the ld. Single
Judge. It is this judgment which is under challenge.
13. The basic issue in this case is with respect to whether the Appellants
are liable to pay the electricity dues and if so in what proportion.
14. Mr. Meet Malhotra, ld. Senior Counsel has taken the Court through the
order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the GNCTD, after the disbanding of
DESU /DVB was disbanded and creation of BSES. In terms of the said order,
the Hon'ble Lt. Governor at the relevant time bearing in mind, the public
interest, had directed as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 108 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) read with Govt. of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification number U-
11030/2/2003/UTL dated the 20th February, 2004, the
Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi,
in view of policy involving public interest, hereby gives
the following directions to the Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission:
1. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, shall ,
(1) direct the Discoms to write off the principal
dues against sale of power during DESU/DVB
period in respect of the private electricity
consumers and to waive off their late payment
surcharge as well pertaining to that period only,
except the cases under litigation at any forum
and at any level.
(2) direct the Discoms not to raise any bill on the
private electricity consumers pertaining to sale of
power in DESU/ DVB period excluding the cases
under litigation at any forum and at any level.
(3) direct the Discoms to implement the above
decisions (1) & (2) from the next immediate
billing cycle."
15. As can be seen from the above, all principal dues were to be written off
during the DESU/ DVB period with respect to private electricity consumers,
including late payment surcharge. However, the cases which were under
litigation at any forum were exempt from this benefit. This exception was then
considered by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 8568/2009 and
13046/2009 wherein vide judgment dated 02nd December, 2010, it was held
that the benefit as provided in the order dated 16th May, 2008 would be
extendable to other persons who may have filed litigations as well. The
operative portion of the said judgment read as under:-
"20.Reverting to the instant case, the object of the impugned
Notification is also the reduction of litigation and
acknowledgement of the fact that the Respondent was unable to
recover arrears of stale claims. Neither of the above objects
have been achieved by excluding the benefit of the Notification
dated 16th/19th May 2008 to the cases where the demand for
arrears of the electricity dues is under challenge in courts.
Applying the ratio of the decision in All India Federation of
Tax Practitioners, it must be held that the exclusion of the
consumers who have challenged the demand of arrears of
electricity dues in courts from the ambit of the benefit of
Notification dated 16th/19th May 2008 is discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. Consequently, the portion of Clauses (1) and (2) of the
impugned Notification dated 16th /19th May 2008 which excludes
"the cases under litigation at any forum and at any level" is
struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. A consequential mandamus is issued to the Respondent
to extend the benefit of the impugned Notification dated 16th/19th
May 2008 to the two Petitioners and all others who are similarly
situated."
16. In view of the above position, the dues of the Appellants would longer
be recoverable. The ld. Single Judge's judgment was dated prior to the above
developments.
17. In this background, the appeals are allowed. All the demands of DESU/
DVB against the Appellants shall stand waived off.
18. These appeals are accordingly, disposed of. All pending applications,
if any, stands disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2025/v/nd/rks
