Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 7139/2007
RAJINDER SINGH DHAMA .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, Adv.
W.P.(C) 7139/2007
RAJINDER SINGH DHAMA .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, Adv.
VERSUS
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD .... Respondent
Through Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Adv.
Through Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 11.03.2010
The respondent, discom has made allegations of direct theft of electricity.
The petitioner alleges that his tenant, if at all, was responsible for the direct theft of electricity. The respondent, discom disputes the said statement and has stated that there is no proof or material to show that the premises was let out to a tenant, who had indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is the case of the respondent, discom that the said averment is an afterthought.
Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the seizure memo/inspection report, in which names of Mr. Kallu and Mr. Sanjeev Malik are mentioned. Counsel for the respondent, discom states that Mr. Kallu was Manager of the petitioner and this is specifically mentioned in the form of assessment of connected load, wherein the name of the petitioner along with user Mr. Kallu and Manager have been mentioned.
These are disputed questions of facts, which require oral evidence and
2010:DHC:1436 cross examination of witnesses. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been initiated, in which the petitioner is an accused. The petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions including the contentions raised in the present writ petition before the Special Court. Disputed questions of facts will be decided by the Special
Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 11, 2010 NA 2010:DHC:1436
The respondent, discom has made allegations of direct theft of electricity.
The petitioner alleges that his tenant, if at all, was responsible for the direct theft of electricity. The respondent, discom disputes the said statement and has stated that there is no proof or material to show that the premises was let out to a tenant, who had indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is the case of the respondent, discom that the said averment is an afterthought.
Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the seizure memo/inspection report, in which names of Mr. Kallu and Mr. Sanjeev Malik are mentioned. Counsel for the respondent, discom states that Mr. Kallu was Manager of the petitioner and this is specifically mentioned in the form of assessment of connected load, wherein the name of the petitioner along with user Mr. Kallu and Manager have been mentioned.
These are disputed questions of facts, which require oral evidence and
2010:DHC:1436 cross examination of witnesses. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been initiated, in which the petitioner is an accused. The petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions including the contentions raised in the present writ petition before the Special Court. Disputed questions of facts will be decided by the Special
Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 11, 2010 NA 2010:DHC:1436
JUDGMENT