Delhi High Court - Orders
Tata Power Delhi Distribution vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 16 February, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~29 (1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2932/2022
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr Anupam Varma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Ashim Vachher, SC for DDA/R-1
& R-2 with Mr Kunal Lakra,
Advocate.
Mr Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD/R-
3 with Ms Ayushi Bansal and Mr
Sanyam Suri, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 16.02.2022 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 8489/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 2932/2022 & CM APPL. 8487/2022 (interim directions) and CM APPL. 8488/2022 (seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates)
3. The petitioner claims a refund of around Rs.31 crores apropos the land license fee, which it has paid to GNCTD for the installation of a distribution network for supply of electricity in Rohini, Delhi.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for Delhi Development Authority Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2022 17:43:47 ('DDA') submits that the petition is not maintainable; it relates to an alleged payment made in the year 2013-2014; the claim of the petitioner is time-barred; that no communication whatsoever was made to the DDA, at any stage after the order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ('DERC'), for refund of such monies. He submits, with reference to Annexure-P/8 to the petition (pdf pg.96), that the date of commercial operation for S.Nos.1 to 27 is prior to 31.03.2014 therefore, all these monies could have been built into the electricity tariff at the petitioner's instance. The petitioner cannot seek recovery from the DDA for monies which were otherwise recoverable from the electricity consumers. He further submits that the demand was never made for lease rents and it is a matter of record that DDA has already paid an amount of Rs.250 crores for setting up of electricity distribution network.
5. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the said monies were DDA's requisite contribution towards the purchase of machinery and not for licence fees for the land. After all, the machinery would have to be fixed to the earth for which a license fee would have to be paid. He refers to a communication dated 29.01.2019, from the DDA, in which the issue payment of premium for land from GNCTD was said to be under examination/ consideration, and the decision in the matter was to be communicated to the petitioner in due course.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the respondents. Reply and rejoinder, if any, be filed in 4 weeks each, successively.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2022 17:43:477. Renotify on 26.04.2022, when a related matter is stated to be listed.
8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 16, 2022/rd Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2022 17:43:47