Delhi District Court Through His General Power Of Attorney vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 15 February, 2016 IN THE COURT OF MS SUJATA KOHLI, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. C.S. No. 231/14/06 Unique ID No.02401C1009402006 Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Navrang Rai R/o 487/25, Peera Garhi Village New Delhi. Through his General Power of Attorney Shri Diwakar Nath Dubey. .... Plaintiff VERSUS BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Service to be effected through its Legal & Enforcement Cell, Andrews Ganj,New Delhi) .... Defendant Date of filing of the suit : 01112006 Date of reserving the Judgment/Order : 23102015 Date of passing the Judgment/Order : 15022016 C.S. No. 231/14/06 Cont...............2 SUIT FOR DECLARATIION AND PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for seeking a declaration qua an inspection report dated 14072005, an impugned bill dated 09082005 for a sum of Rs. 6,83,909/ to be declared null and void and illegal. He further prays for a decree of mandatory injunction to restore the electricity connection on its premises as per the particulars furnished and thereafter for a decree to be passed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the said electricity connection. The defendant BSES have contested the suit on merits as well as raised several legal objections. C.S. No. 231/14/06 Cont...............3 2. The facts as stated by the plaintiff briefly are, that plaintiff claims to be the registered consumer as per the K. No. 2630J0640011 / 26300D070006 (new) for a sanctioned load of 11 KW NX installed at his premised bearing no. 487/25, Peera Garhi, New Delhi. Shri Diwakar Nath Dubey is stated to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the suit. 3. It has been claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that he had made the payment of the electricity bills regularly up to August, 2005 and in the month of September, 2005 the electricity connection of the plaintiff stood disconnected. The last payment made by plaintiff was on 29082005 for a sum of Rs. 17,000/. C.S. No. 231/14/06 Cont...............4 4. Further stated that plaintiff was using the electricity connection uninterruptedly till the time of disconnection and had never violated any rules and regulations of the defendant. He never used any extra load than the load sanctioned to him. 5. It is alleged, that on 14072005 some employees of the defendant, claiming themselves to be joint inspection team came at the premises of the plaintiff without any prior notice, in the absence of the plaintiff, and even of his authorized representative. The plaintiff was never given any inspection report. He was neither served with any showcause notice nor any notice was found pasted in his premises on the date of the alleged inspection. The alleged inspection report was not prepared at the site but later on by the defendant at their office C.S. No. 231/14/06 Cont...............5 itself and that alleged antedated report was what was received by the plaintiff through post. 6. As per the said alleged inspection report, the defendants were alleging that plaintiff had used load 31.294 KW, as against the sanctioned load of 11 KW and have further made an observation that meter box plastic seals were found tampered, and monogram sticker seal was found refixed, and further that the meter was running slow by 67.69%. As per the plaintiff, these allegations made in the said report were absolutely false and baseless, and the document itself was manipulated and antedated document. C.S. No. 231/14/06 Cont...............6 7. The plaintiff further goes on to state, that the officials of the inspection team while inspecting the premises had wrongly noted down the load to be 30.294KW (should be read as 31.294 in the context) and that infact, the officials had noted down the load installed in the adjoining premises, occupied by a neighbour of the plaintiff namely Gayender. He further