* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8085/2009 LOKESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra and Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus NDPL ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Srivastava and Mr. Diwakar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 26.3.2010 1. Ms. Vandana Malik, Advocate is present in Court and has produced court diary for the calendar year 2009. She reiterates that she was contacted by Mr. Lokesh Gupta to appear before the Delhi Legal Service Authority and settle the matter with the respondent, NDPL. 2. Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the signatures on the application form etc. do not match and are completely different from the signatures of the petitioner in the writ petition as well as on the passport. Ms. Vandana Malik states that the papers including Vakalatnama were collected from her chamber in Tis Hazari Court by an associate of Mr. Lokesh Gupta who had accompanied Mr. Lokesh Gupta, when they met her outside the premises of the permanent Lok Adalat. 3. Counsel for the respondent, discom has produced before me photocopy of the file maintained by them. The petitioner along with his application for new connection had submitted copy of his passport. As per the application form, copy of the election card was not filed. In the passport of the petitioner, the address mentioned is House No.212, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-41. The election identity card bears a different address i.e. House No.91, Village Tikri Kalan, New Delhi. Photocopy of the election identity card was filed along with the application form submitted before the Delhi Legal Services Authority. 4. At this stage, counsel for the parties states that the disputed settlement recorded on 8th September, 2008, may be treated as cancelled with right to the parties to agitate their grievances in accordance with law before appropriate authority. This will mean that the petitioner will have the right to challenge the inspection report and the subsequent bills raised by the respondent, discom before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 5. In view of the said statement, the settlement agreement is quashed and set aside by mutual consent of the parties. It is clarified that the period between 9th July, 2008 till 26th March, 2010, will not be counted for the purpose of limitation in any proceedings initiated by the petitioner or the respondent, discom. 6. Possibly one way to ensure that there is no controversy and doubt is to ask each consumer to produce the original document before the photocopy of the said identity document is placed on record. The original document should be produced before the Delhi Legal Services Authority or the Presiding Officer concerned and returned after verification. This fact should be mentioned in the order sheet. The writ petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 26, 2010 NA/VKR