WPC No.7428/2009 Page 1 07 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7428/2009 RAM NIWAS GOEL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv. versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. .... Respondent Through Mr. Sunil Fernandes and Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 25.02.2010 1. The petitioner’s contention is that the dispute with the respondent, discom was settled and compromised before the permanent Lok Adalat-II. In this connection, my attention is drawn to the paragraph 6 of the petition filed before the Lok Adalat, in which reference is made to inspection of the premises of the petitioner in the last week of February-2005. In this application, the petitioner had prayed for restoration of the electricity connection, which was lying disconnected since October-November, 2003 due to non-payment of dues and thereafter removal of meter. It was further stated by the petitioner that outstanding amount in October-November, 2003 of Rs, 32,800/- was subsequently paid by the petitioner. In view of the application filed by the petitioner, the electricity connection of the petitioner was restored. 2. The respondent, discom in the counter affidavit have stated that on 17th WPC No.7428/2009 Page 2 February, 2005, the Division Enforcement Inspection Team, as per the report, had found that the petitioner was indulging in direct theft of electricity by way of illegal tapping directly from the service line. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments disputed the said inspection. However, learned counsel for the respondent, discom has drawn my attention to photographs filed with the counter affidavit. My attention is drawn to the notings and the date, which are clearly visible in the said photographs. 3. It appears that after the said inspection on 17th February, 2005, the respondent, discom did not raise any bill and have not initiated any action under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. A demand for Rs. 2,54,284/- was raised for the first time in the monthly bill payable on or before 2nd February, 2009. This was followed by another bill with due date 17th March, 2009 for Rs. 4,41,183/- inclusive of late payment surcharge. The later bill has been categorized as ‘bill for theft of electricity’. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent cannot raise this demand after a gap of four year from the date of inspection. It is stated that the respondent-discom has not initiated proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2005. 6. Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent states that they shall be initiating proceedings before the special Court under Sectin 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will like to contest the said proceedings, if they are filed and WPC No.7428/2009 Page 3 he does not want to settle the matter. 7. The petitioner was granted stay in his favour from disconnection of the electricity vide order dated 27th March, 2008. The said order continues till today. The said interim order will continue till further orders, but will be subject to orders, which may be passed by the special Court on a complaint filed by the respondent, discom. In case no complaint is filed and/or this order is not modified by the special Court, the electricity connection of the petitioner will not be disconnected for non-payment of the electricity bill issued pursuant to the inspection dated 17th February, 2005. The petitioner and the respondent will be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions before the special Court. It is clarified that the Special Court will independently apply their mind and will not be influenced by any observation made in this order. The writ petition is disposed of. FEBRUARY 25, 2010 SANJIV KHANNA, J. NA/VKR