Delhi High Court - Orders
Krishan Kapoor vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd And ... on 7 November, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3111/2021 & CM APPL. 9449/2021
KRISHAN KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Mr. Gurdeep
Chauhan, Ms. Mahak Dua, Mr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh & Mr.
Derender Singh, Advocates.
versus
TATA POWER DELHI
DISTRIBUTION LTD AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh
Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg &
Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocates
for R-1.
Mr. Punit Vinay & Mr. Aditya
Kapoor, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 07.11.2023
1. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 2, being her husband's brother. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 live in the same property [AL-2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088]. The ground floor of the property is occupied by the petitioner and the first floor is occupied by respondent No. 2. The dispute concerns the location of the electricity meters for both the ground floor and the first floor.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the electricity meters are at present located on a wall which is just outside his living room. He seeks W.P.(C) 3111/2021 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/11/2023 at 01:06:15 shifting of the meters to another common wall and is willing to bear the expenses for shifting of both the meters.
3. The petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ["CGRF"] for a direction for shifting of the meters. In the complaint filed by him, the petitioner raised contentions with regard to the right of respondent No. 2 to the part of the property where the meters are installed. However, it is clearly submitted on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that the rights and contentions with regard to title and possession of the property or any part thereof, are not required to be adjudicated in the present petition. The petitioner only seeks shifting of the electricity meters in order to enable him to maximise enjoyment of the part of the property.
4. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are also embroiled in civil litigation, which concerns some part of the property in question. CGRF, by an order dated 21.09.2020, directed the shifting of the meter after examining the orders passed by the Civil Court in the pending suit and by this Court in appeal. Respondent No. 2 approached the Ombudsman against the said order of CGRF. The Ombudsman, vide order dated 03.02.2021, has reversed the order of CGRF, finding that the petitioner's grievance arises out of a property dispute and that the petitioner is not the registered consumer on whose request the shifting of the meter can be permitted under Regulation 25 of the DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017.
5. The petitioner is before this Court against the aforesaid order of the Ombudsman.
6. Respondent No. 1 had filed a feasibility report before the CGRF, W.P.(C) 3111/2021 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/11/2023 at 01:06:15 which makes it clear that technically, the meters can be shifted from their present location to the location provided by the petitioner, subject to charges being borne by the petitioner for laying of the cable and shifting of the meters.
7. By an order dated 17.02.2023, respondent No. 1 was again directed to inspect the property and place a feasibility report on record. Although parties were directed to cooperate in the conduct of the inspection, Mr. Srivastava states that inspection could not be conducted due to obstruction by them.
8. It is directed that the inspection will be carried out tomorrow i.e. 08.11.2023 at 11:30 AM. In the event any of the parties place an obstruction in the conduct of the inspection, they will be liable for proceedings under contempt. Inspection report be filed within one week.
9. Mr. Vinay, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that the proposed location is not technically feasible as it is near the exit of the property and would be a fire hazard. These objections will also be dealt with in the report of respondent No. 1.
10. List on 06.12.2023.
PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 7, 2023 'pv'/ W.P.(C) 3111/2021 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/11/2023 at 01:06:16