Delhi District Court
Rajeev Gulati Etc vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 11 September, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI N P KAUSHIK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ,
SPECIAL COURT (ELECTRICITY), TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Suit No. 14/09
Rajeev Gulati etc.
........Plaintiffs
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
........Defendant
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Plaintiffs Rajeev Gulati and Kishan Yadav have filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction against BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as defendant company). Plaintiffs have submitted that plaintiff No.1 Rajeev Gulati and plaintiff No.2 Kishan Yadav are the tenants under the widow of plaintiff No.3 Rajinder Singh in respect of premises bearing No.84B, First Floor, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The premises are having a nondomestic (NX) category meter with a sanctioned load of 11 KW. Both the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are using the electricity provided by their landlord. On 11.07.2008, officials of the defendant company visited the premises in question in pursuance to a complaint filed by the plaintiffs with the defendant company on 8.07.08. Plaintiffs contended that they were using generator sets at that time. Officials of the defendant company replaced the old burnt meter Suit No. 14/09 Page 1 of 4 2 No.27035322 by a new meter bearing No.27112599. Old meter was carried away by the officials of the defendant company. A show cause notice was handed over to the father of the registered consumer late Sh. Makkhan Singh. Connected load was shown as 24.755 KW. Contention of plaintiff No.1 is that he never used a load of more than 5 KW. Contention of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is that they received notice for disconnection in April 2009. At that time only they came to know of the speaking order dated 26.02.2009. Submission made by the plaintiffs is that the defendant company never got the meter tested through NABL Accredited Laboratory as they were never called to the said Lab as per Regulations. The defendant company thereafter issued a theft bill for an amount of Rs.4,52,365/. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, plaintiffs prayed for declaring the impugned inspection dated 11.07.2008, impugned show cause notices dated 11.07.2008 bearing No.5461 and the bill for an amount of Rs.4,52,365/ as null & void. They have prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant company from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the new meter installed at the premises.
3. Defendant company in its written statement submitted that on inspection conducted on 11.07.2008 the meter No.2703522 was found totally damaged and burnt at site. From the burning pattern it was observed that the meter was deliberately burnt in order to destroy the material evidence inside it. Meter was sent to the laboratory. Connected load was found to be 24.755 KW against sanctioned load of 11 KW. Videography was done at the site. Plaintiff was asked to witness the testing of the meter at Suit No. 14/09 Page 2 of 4 3 ERDA Lab. In its report dated 26.07.2008, ERDA Lab gave finding that as per burning pattern meter was burnt deliberately. A show cause notice was served upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not attend the personal hearing scheduled for 02.09.2008. On examination, defendant company found that the average consumption of electricity from 28.07.2007 to 28.06.2008 was 1960 upm. It was 50.78% of the assessed consumption. CMRI data downloaded on 28.06.2008 shows various irregularities. For this reason, speaking order dated 26.02.2009 was passed. A case of dishonest abstraction of energy was established. On this basis, theft bill was raised.
4. I have heard the arguments addressed by the parties at length. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are admittedly the actual users of the electricity. Plaintiff No.3 Smt. Ranjit Kaur is the mother of Sh. Rajinder Singh, the registered consumer. Plaintiffs have a legal right in seeking injunction as prayed for against the defendant company. A prima facie case, therefore, is in favour of the plaintiffs.
5. Balance of convenience is on the side of the plaintiffs as non grant of relief shall cause greater harm to the plaintiffs than the one likely to accrue to the defendant company in the event of refusal of injunction. Plaintiffs shall also suffer irreparable loss in the event of refusal of injunction, electricity being an essential amenity. Their loss cannot be assessed in terms of money alone.
6. Perusal of lab report clearly shows that the burning pattern showed that the meter was deliberately burnt. Laboratory is an independent agency. Nothing on record suggests any connivance between the defendant Suit No. 14/09 Page 3 of 4 4 company and the lab. Plaintiffs obviously have deliberately burnt the meter so as to wipe out evidence relating to the consumption of electricity. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. Relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. A person coming to the court with unclean hands cannot claim the same. Application for injunction against the defendant company from disconnecting the electricity supply is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
(N P Kaushik) ASJ/Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari/Delhi Announced in the open court on 11th September, 2009.
Suit No. 14/09 Page 4 of 4