34. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1352/2010 USHA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. P. Banerjee & Ms. Princy, Advocates. versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 08.03.2010 1. The petitioner has challenged the speaking order dated 2nd June, 2007, in this writ petition filed on 4th March, 2010. There is delay and laches of nearly three years in approaching Court. The only explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by their order dated 20th July, 2007 had granted relief to the petitioner. 2. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is incorrect. The billing dispute which was subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 6358/2002 was referred to Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has accordingly decided this billing dispute in respect of bill of Rs.3,51,507/- and it is in this context that observations have been made by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum that both the petitioner and the respondent have agreed that the bills would be raised on the basis of the actual meter reading between the period 27th July, 2002 and upto 26th September, 2006. 3. The dispute with regard to DAE bill was subject matter of CM No. 3441/2007. This DAE bill was raised on the basis of the speaking order dated 3rd January, 2007 passed by the Enforcement Cell. Consequent thereto, a bill of Rs.3,09,510/- was raised. This bill was stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1,50,000/-. It was further directed by order dated 19th March, 2007 that the respondents on deposit of the said amount would re-energize the electricity connection on the petitioner completing commercial formalities. Order dated 19th March, 2007 passed on CM Nos.3441/2007 & 3940/2007 further states that the petitioner would be given another opportunity to submit reply and thereafter a fresh speaking order would be passed by the Enforcement Cell. 4. Thus, there were two disputes. The first dispute relating to billing dispute of Rs.3,51,507/- as per the order dated 19th March, 2007 was referred to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The second dispute relating to the DAE proceedings was referred for fresh adjudication before the Assessing Officer. Two separate orders have accordingly been passed by the Assessing Officer dated 2nd June, 2007 and the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dated 20th July, 2007. The petitioner accepted the order passed on 2nd June, 2007 and now belatedly after a delay of more than two and half years seeks to challenge the said order without a justifiable and valid reason to explain the delay. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 08, 2010 VKR