WPC No.9267/2009 Page 1 03 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9267/2009 ASHISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Goel, Advocate. versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. .... Respondent Through Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 16.02.2010 Counsel for the respondent, discom states that they will be filing a complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Special Court and substantiate their claim in the speaking order. 2. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the allegations made against the petitioner and submits that the respondents themselves are at fault as they did not download data with effect from 20th February, 2008. It is further submitted that inference that the petitioner had indulged in DAE is not established because the meter in question got burnt. Counsel submits that there can be several reasons for burning of a meter. He states that if the respondents initiate any action under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, they shall contest the same in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 3 lacs with the respondent, discom in terms of the order dated 26th May, 2009. In the said order it is recorded WPC No.9267/2009 Page 2 that on the petitioner depositing Rs. 3,00,000/- with the respondents, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The said stay order will continue and will be subject to further orders, which will be passed by special Court. In case the respondents do not file any complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of six months, they will lose their claim on Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner and the said amount will be adjusted against future demands. This order is made in view of disputed facts raised which cannot be decided without recording oral evidence. 4. It is clarified that special Court will independently apply its mind without being influenced by the observations made in this order. It will be open to the special Court to modify the interim order. The writ petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 16, 20100 NA