40. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1807/2010 Date of decision: 16th March, 2010 DEVKI NANDAN AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Laliet Kumar, Advocate. versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saahila Lamba & Mr. Vishu Wadhwa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-discom on advance notice states that a speaking order dated 5th November, 2009 was passed and the bill has been raised on the basis that the meter in question was defective. He further states that proceedings for theft/DAE have been dropped. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not receive any show cause notice or information from the respondent that they want to assess the petitioner on the basis of defective meter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of Regulation 43 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007, the respondents are not entitled to raise a bill for defective/non functional meter due to lapse of time. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-discom states that without going into and accepting the said contentions, they shall give a hearing to the petitioner in which the petitioner will be entitled to raise all objections and thereafter a fresh speaking order will be passed. 4. In view of the aforesaid statements, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondent-discom to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order on the question of defective meter. All issues and contentions raised by the parties are left open. The respondent-discom will raise a fresh bill after speaking order is passed. It will be also open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance, if any, before appropriate forum in case of an adverse order. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 16, 2010 VKR