Full Text
Translation output
27 to 29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6706/2012
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Advocate with Mr. Nildiil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 6706/2012
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Advocate with Mr. Nildiil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra, Advocates.
VERSUS
GRANDER SINGH AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Augustine Ghatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Through: Mr. Augustine Ghatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.1.
WITH
W.P.(G) 6707/2012
Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra,
Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra,
VERSUS
RAJPAL SHARMA AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Augustine Ghatterjee, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
And
Through: Mr. Augustine Ghatterjee, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
And
W.P.(G) 6709/2012
Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra, 2015:DHC:11458
Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Rahul Kinra, 2015:DHC:11458
VERSUS
KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Augustine Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Through: Mr. Augustine Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
20.11.2015 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the order dated May, 2012 passed by CGRF by which the petitioner was directed to provisionally release electricity connection to the respondent No.l in the present writ petitions subject to verification from SDM and if any negative certificate was received from the SDM, the petitioner was given liberty to disconnect the connection
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had admitted that the premises of all the respondent No.l in the present writ petitions are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of GNCT of Delhi.
He had, however, stated that as the area in question was not electrified, permanent electricity connection could be provided only if land was provided by the respondents for installation of transformer and other allied electrical installation.
This Court, on reconsideration, is of the opinion that the ambit of the present petitions should not be enlarged. CGRF in the impugned order had onlydirected grant of provisional electricity connection.
Since the area in question now admittedly falls in Delhi, provisional electricity connections in accordance with CGRF's order should be provided to the respondent No.l, if not already provided.
In the event, the respondents apply for permanent electricity connection or for enhancernent of load, the same shall be decided by the petitioner in accordance with the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and
Performance Standards Regulation, 2007.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petitions stand disposed of.
At the instance of learned counsel for petitioner it is directed that the questions of lawraised in the present petitions are left open.
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 20, 2015 js
20.11.2015 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the order dated May, 2012 passed by CGRF by which the petitioner was directed to provisionally release electricity connection to the respondent No.l in the present writ petitions subject to verification from SDM and if any negative certificate was received from the SDM, the petitioner was given liberty to disconnect the connection
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had admitted that the premises of all the respondent No.l in the present writ petitions are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of GNCT of Delhi.
He had, however, stated that as the area in question was not electrified, permanent electricity connection could be provided only if land was provided by the respondents for installation of transformer and other allied electrical installation.
This Court, on reconsideration, is of the opinion that the ambit of the present petitions should not be enlarged. CGRF in the impugned order had onlydirected grant of provisional electricity connection.
Since the area in question now admittedly falls in Delhi, provisional electricity connections in accordance with CGRF's order should be provided to the respondent No.l, if not already provided.
In the event, the respondents apply for permanent electricity connection or for enhancernent of load, the same shall be decided by the petitioner in accordance with the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and
Performance Standards Regulation, 2007.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petitions stand disposed of.
At the instance of learned counsel for petitioner it is directed that the questions of lawraised in the present petitions are left open.
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 20, 2015 js
JUDGMENT