Delhi District Court
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd vs Sanjeev Kumar Tandon on 27 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No.DLNT01-003960-2019
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
THROUGH: ITS AR/MANAGER (LEGAL)
MANISH KUMAR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
SUB-STATION BUILDIG (TPDDL HOUSE),
HUDSON LINES, KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI-110009
ALSO AT :-
SUB-STATION BUILDING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI-110054 ........Appellant
VERSUS
SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
S/O SH. S.N. TANDON,
R/O JP-2, PITAMPUTA,
DELHI-110034
ALSO AT:-
DP-15, PITAMPURA,
DELHI-110034 .....Respondent
Date of institution : 02.05.2019
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 22.11.2024
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 1 of 22
Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
Date of Order/Judgment : 27.11.2024
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/DECREE
DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED BY learned TRIAL COURT OF learned
CIVIL JUDGE-07(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN
CASE TITLED AS 'SH. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON VS. TPDDL'
BEARING CIVIL SUIT NO. 435/2016
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal arises from suit filed in year 1992.
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant/defendant is challenging order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge-07, (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case titled as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. TPDDL bearing civil suit 435/2016.
PLAINTIFF CASE
2. It is case of the plaintiff that M/s Banquet Invitation was licencee of plaintiff. Complaint by M/s Banquet Invitation regarding improper supply of electricity was made. The staff of DESU visited the suit property on 27.02.1992 alongwith police and started tampering the wiring without disclosing identity. The Sub-Inspector reported at Police Station that no fault was found. Despite this, show cause notice dated 27.03.1992 regarding theft of electricity was issued. Reply was given. Same was not considered.
3. Suit bearing no. 404/92 was filed challenging the show cause notice. During pendency of Suit bearing no. 404/92 vide order dated 10.03.1992, concerned officer issued order for disconnection.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 2 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
4. An amended prayer seeking Mandatory Injunction for restoration of electricity connection was made in connected suit bearing no. 404/92.
5. Thereafter, bill of amount of Rs.33,32,165.26/- for period 27.04.1989 to 27.02.1992 of meter No. 135119 was issued as mentioned in prayer. This is under challenge in the present suit. The prayer in the present suit is for restraining the defendants from demanding payment of bill amount of Rs.33,32,165.26/- for period 27.04.1989 to 27.02.1992. This bill is challenged on the ground that same is malafide, illegal and no alleged theft took place. It was alleged that there was no tempering of seal/meter.
CASE OF THE THEN DEFENDANTS NDPL/DTCL
6. Preliminary objection was taken that suit is not maintainable. Notice under section 478 of DMC Act was not served. License under section 416 and 417 of DMC Act was not obtained.
7. On merits it was the case of the defendants that connection was granted for domestic light purpose. Use could not have been converted without permission of defendants. It was clarified that bill was charged on the basis of load factor and further supplementary bill was also rightly issued. With these averments the dismissal of suit was prayed for.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 3 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON REPLICATION
8. Replication dated 11.08.92 was filed by the plaintiff. In essence averments in plaint were reiterated. Submissions in WS were denied.
ISSUES
9. Vide order dated 03.05.1994, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:
"(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as MCD has not been joined for violation of Sec. 416 & 417 of the DMC Act? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff was sub-letting supply and using excess load and committing irregularities in the use of electricity as alleged by the defendant?OPD
(iii) Whether the demand bills based on the impugned inspection report is legal and recoverable? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for in the plaint?
(v) Relief."
10. EVIDENCE IN SUIT NO. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16 AND in CONNECTED SUIT NO. 624/92 later suit no. 339/94 and finally 435/16 WAS COMMON RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 4 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
11. On 12.09.1995 following order was passed by learned trial court IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16.................:
"12.09.1995 Pr: Sh D.K.Malhotra Adv for the Pltf. Sh CL.Gautam, GA for the defendant. Sh Gautam seeks re-examination of DW.1 to clarify the size and measurements of the wire which was found at the time of the alleged inspection and as to whether there was change-over switch or any alternative arrangement to tap the supply. fanya Sh D.K. Malhotra, Adv for the Pltf opposes the same. The re-examination of the witnesses is allowed as in my opinion/clarifications on these two points are necessary and relevant to the matters in controversy. Let the witness be be examined.
CJ: Delhi Remaining examination of DW1 concluded, discharged. Witness is discharged. Another DW. Sh P.C.Suman, Supdt. is also present but as original record of the Enf from the Vigilance Deptt has not been made available, the matter is deferred for remaining DE for 01.11.95.
It is also brought to my notice that suit No.339/94 and 338/94 are between the same parties and raise common question of law and facts in which the same inspection report dt.27.2.94 is assailed by the pltf. As, requested by both the Ld.Counsels for the parties the suits are consolidated. Evidence shall in suit no. 339/94 and shall be read for the purposes of the other suit as well.
Put up for DE on 01.11.1995.
CJ: Delhi"
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 5 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON (Emphasis in bold is by this court)
12. Perusal of the record of Ld. Trial Court in both the suits shows that though evidence was to be recorded in suit no. 339/1994 later suit no. 435/2016 but the parties have lead part evidence in both suits.
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE
13. Following DE was lead in civil Suit no. 339/1994 later suit no. 435/2016. However, DE was closed in suit no. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16 vide order dated 29.08.1997.
SR No. Name of witness Important Admission/denial in cross of examination. witness
1. DW1 Sh. A.K. In his examination in chief he stated that "During Gupta the year 1992 I was posted as Asstt. Engineer in the Civil Lines Distt. My nature of duties included to lookafter the maintenance of electricity supply and to detect cases of irregularities in the use of electricity. I had inspected the premises of the pltf on 27.2.92 alongwith other officials from the Vigilance, Enf. and the Meter Testing Deptt. I have brought the original record of inspection today. Again said I have brought the supplementary record kept by the Deptt and the original record is lying with Enf Deptt. At the time of inspection one representative of the pltf was present but I do not recollect his name. The connected load was found to be 41.826KW plus 120HP. I am not aware of the sanctioned load, but the said connection was sanctioned for domestic light purposes. The pltf was also found committing direct theft of electricity. There were two wire lines which were coming from the pole and leading to the electricity RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 6 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON meter but just prior to the meter there were joints and the electricity was being tapped independent of the electricity meter. The supply was being used for running a Banquet Hall. No shunt capacitor was installed at the site. The electricity meter was checked by the staff of the MTD and therefore I do not know what was its position. The wire whch was coming from the electricity pole and by passing the electricity meter was of single core 50 m.m. Two inspection reports were prepared at the site. Copy of the inspection report is Marked A for identification. Copy of the inspection report was tendered to the person who was representing the pltf but he refused to accept or acknowledge the same. As AE (Zone) I had also lodged an FIR against the pltf. for indulging in fraudulent abstraction of the energy. Thereafter the inspection report was submitted with the deptt. for taking necessary action against the pltf.
At the time of inspection single core two wire of 50m.m was found bypassing the electricity meter and it is correct that I depose in the cross
-examination that after lodging of FIR two core single wire of 10 m.m. was seized by the police. It appears that the wire was replaced by the plf subsequent to the inspection on 27.02.92 and the FIR was lodged on 14.04.92 though the complaint was lodged with the police on 26.03.92. The electricity apparatus and wires were seized by the police on 16.04.1992. In the premises there was a Generator and also supply from the DESU and a change-over switch was also installed by the pltf which was detected at the time of inspection."
2. DW2 Sh. He during his examination in chief stated Rajender Pal that his nature of duties include checking the Sharma electricity meter, its working, position, seals, Inspector, MTD, defect and irregularities. It is also stated Nizamuddin, that the plaintiff was running a Banquet New Delhi. Hall. There was one single phase meter for RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 7 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON domestic light installed at the site. The witness stated that half seals of the meter were found to be fictitious as it did not tally with the sample.
3. DW3 Sh. P.C. The witness during his examination in chief Suman, stated that he had inspected the premises on Superintendent 27.02.1992 along with other officials of the (T) Zone No. Enforcement/Vigilance and MTD. During 1501, Xen Distt., inspection, it was found that consumer had Vikas Puri, Delhi fixed his own service line copper wire single core two wire 50 mm square. There was directly tapping from the main service line of DESU by the consumer before the electricity meter board. Some photographs of the site were also taken by calling a local photographer. The photographs are marked A to Mark T. A copy of the inspection report is already marked DW1/1.
4. DW4 Sh. Hawa "I have brought the record pertaining to Kno. 402- Singh 135119/DL registered in the name of plaintiff at 6, Shahbad, New Delhi. The initial sanctioned load of the above Kno. Was 0.5 KW for DL purpose only and the same was sanctioned on 17.03.89 and was operated w.e.f. 29/4/89. The supply of the above Kno. was disconnected on 28.03.1992 when the meter and service line was removed on 19.04.1992. However the supply was restored on 16.10.1993 for the load of ...KW as per the order passed by Hon'ble High Court. An additional load from 1 KW to 20 KW was energised on 03.08.1996 as per voluntarily discloser scheme. The file of which I am not brought today. I have brought the file when I could not bring on 28.05.1997. The load has been enhanced as per approval of the then GM (E) and under the voluntary discloser scheme. The demand raised on the basis of inspection dt. 27.02.1992 is correct and as per rules."
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 8 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
14. DE was closed vide order dated 29.08.1997 in passed in Civil suit no. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE.
15. Following PE was lead in civil Suit no. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16 and also in suit no. 624/92 later suit no. 339/94 and finally 435/16.
16. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined witnesses:
SR No. Name of Documents tendered in evidence of witness witness
1. PW1 Sh. Sabir In his examination in chief he stated that "I am Ali, electrician working as Electrician in invitation Banquet Hall since 1990. At the time of functions in the Banquet Hall, I operate the generator installed in the Banquet Hall and check all the lights and A.C. points whether they are working property or not. After the function is over I switch off the generator at the time of closure of banquet hall at night or after the function. There are two generators one of 2 125 KVA and other of 62 KVA and source of energy to the A.C. plant and other electrical equipments are these two generators. Now at present, 20 KW load has been sanctioned by the DVB and a meter has also be en installed through which we are consuming Energy electricity for the purpose of lights and fans."2. Sh.Subhash GPA Ex. PW 1/1
Kakkar, attorney of plaintiff (also Copies of bills Ex. PW 1/2. wrongly mentioned as Copy of Licence Deed is mark A. RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 9 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON PW 1) Copy of complaint is Mark B. Show cause notice Ex.PW 1/2.
Reply Ex. PW 1/5.
Electricity bill in question is Ex. PW 1/6.
Three photos Ex.PW
3. PW2 A.K. In his examination in chief he stated that "I am Khullar consult ant and Engineer at the time with K.C. Consultants and Engineers, 2778/35, Rajasthan Motor Market, Mori Gate, Delhi. I an Higher Secondary, from CBSE. Diploma holder from Technical Institute Nangal Township, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab. In the year 1991, the plaintiffs contacted me for the repair of generator (Kirloskar) Cummins) We repaired the engine in year 1991. We prepared a bill for Rs. 10940/- for the repair on 4-7-91. My signatures are at there which in the original bill which I have seen today. I have also seen the bills which have been issued by me on various dates. The bills are correct as they bear my signatures. I an doing the repair work of plaintiffs generators till today, regularly and issuing the bills, for the same."
17. PE was closed vide order dated 27.11.2002 passed in suit no. 624/92 later suit no. 339/94 and finally 435/16.
18. In para 12 of impugned judgment Dated 07.03.2019 in civil suit no. 435/16 submission made at bar was noticed that evidence in present file be considered and not on file of connected suit.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 10 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
19. Perusal of lower court record in suit no. 435/16 shows that following witnesses were examined :
SR No. Name of witness of witness
1. Sh. A.K. Gupta "I was present in the inspection of the premises of (AE-Desu) the plaintiff which was conducted by a joint team of the Engineers/of DESU on 27.02.92. At the time of inspection there were two single core 50 MM square wires fitted in single phase which were fitted to the meter installed on the spot. This wire was a Pvt. wire and was not the one fixed by DESU at the time of installation. However, AC of a capacity of 120 HP cannot work on the single phase wires which were found to be 41.826 KW plus 120 HP (for AC Plant). The party had connected the wire of the generator set as well as the above said private line to the distribution box from where supply was being regulated. A notice of surcharge was served upon the party on 05.03.1992. The second notice dated 27.03.1992 was issued under my signatures on the basis of the inspection dt. 27.02.1992. I cannot say as to why in the notice dt. 05.03.1992 the connected load was found as 41.826 kw. The private line installed by the consumer could take a load ..less than 100 KW and it could not have taken the entire connected load of 41.826 KW plus 120 HP. However, the private service line would have taken the load of 41.826 KW. At the time of inspection, there was a wire of 50 MM square copper but at the time of its recovery by the police on 16.04.1992 this wire had been changed and a wire of two core 10 MM sq. had been affixed and recovered from the spot."
2. Sh. Roshan Lal "I have seen the bill in respect of connection Sharma (Assit. bearing No. CL-402 1351191 D145/DL/DM in RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 11 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON Finance Officer, respect of Sh. Sanjeev Tandon for the month of June Civil Line Desu) 1992. It is clarified that being 9 point system programme in the computer system, the first figure '6' against actual amount of Rs. 33,32,165.26 has been wrongly taken as 33,33216.52ps. and this is an omission of figure 6(six) in the first digit against paise coloumn. Hand written remarks 'revised bill' have not been given either by me or by my office staff. I regret for the above mistake which is not an international or deliberate but due to the computer system."
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY learned TRIAL COURT.
20. Issue no. 1 was:-
"Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as MCD has not been joined for violation of Sec. 416 & 417 of the DMC Act? OPD"
A finding was returned on this issue that defendants failed to specify how MCD was a necessary party, or how section 416 and section 417 were violated. This issue was decided against the defendants.
21. Issue no.2 was:-
"Whether the plaintiff was sub-letting supply and using excess load and committing irregularities in the use of electricity as alleged by the defendant?OPD RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 12 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
22. Issue no.3 was:-
"Whether the demand bills based on the impugned inspection report is legal and recoverable? OPD A common finding was returned on these two issues that defendants failed to explain as to how wires recovered from spot of 10 mm inches could take load of 42 KW. No evidence on behalf of defendants that wires were subsequently changed was lead. As to how bill starting from 27.04.89 was raised when banquet hall in question was started only on 18.11.1990 was not explained by the defendants. Issues no. 2 and 3 were decided against the defendants. It was also held that judgment in connected suit is not resjudicata.
23. Issue No. 4 was : -
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for in the plaint?
A finding was returned that defendants had no power to realise the amount of bill in question in view of law laid down in case titled as Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010. Issue no. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
24. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Benefit of notification dated 16/19.05.2008 issued by department of power, was extended to the benefit of the plaintiff. Defendants were permanently restrained from realizing the bill of Rs.33,32,165.26/-. RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 13 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
25. FIRST ARGUMENT Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Lalit Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated December, 2, 2010,law laid own in LPA no.724/2011 dated 10.01.2023 titled as Govt. of Delhi vs. Ranbir Singh and order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Dev Arora and Ors., in SLP No.35579/2023.
26. But it is argued that the impugned judgement is dated 07.03.2019 whereas Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010. is decision is dated 02.12.2010. Same was stayed by learned LPA Bench and finally the LPA decision came only on 10.01.2023. Thus, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon decision in case Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010.
26. Per Contra Counsel For respondent contended that in case titled as Lalit Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated December, 2, 2010 it has been held in para no.21 that impugned notification dated 16/19.05.2008 which excludes the case under litigation at any form at any level are struck down as violative of article 14.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 14 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
27. It is further argued that in LPA no.724/2011 dated 10.01.2023 titled as Govt. of Delhi vs. Ranbir Singh, it has been held in para no.9 and 10 that misuse / excess charges are also covered by the notification and the object of the notification was to write off all stale claims.
28. It is further argued that the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA no.724/2011 dated 10.01.2023 was upheld vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Ranbir Singh in S.L.P. No.35170/2023.
SECOND ARGUMENT
29. Counsel for the appellant argues that in suit no. 205/14 (434/16) tilted as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. NDPL and Ors. which was decided by Learned Civil Judge on 26.12.2016 findings were returned in favour of the appellant herein. These findings are binding. The second suit i.e. civil suit no. 435/16 also ought to have been decided in favour of the appellant herein.
30. Per contra counsel for the respondents argues that in the earlier suit the prayer was for permanent injunction restraining defendants from disconnecting supply of connection on basis of notice dated 27.03.1992. Further amended prayer was for mandatory injunction seeking restoration of electricity connection. whereas the second suit was on a different cause of action wherein challenge was laid to bills raised interalia on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, load RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 15 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON report, inspection report, process of raising bill and that bill could not have been raised for more than 6 months was raised.
31. It is further argued that notice dated 27.03.1992 was only regarding breach of conditions of supply. So resjudicata does not apply.
32. No other point was argued by the counsel for the parties.
FOLLOWING POINTS OF DETERMINATION UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 31 CPC ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT.
(i) Whether Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon decision in Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010 while the same was stayed?
ii). Whether findings in suit no. 205/14 (434/16) tilted as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. NDPL and Ors. which was decided by Learned Civil Judge on 26.12.2016 which was decided in favour of appellant on 26.12.2016 operate as resjudicata and impugned judgment is thus illegal?
33. BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF THE FACTS Tersely put in chronological order, the facts of the case put in tabular form are as under:
Date Event 28.03.1992 Suit no.404/92 later suit no.
338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 16 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON 434/16 was filed with a prayer for restraining defendants from disconnecting electricity supply on the basis of notice dated 27.03.1992 28.05.1992 Prayer in suit no. 404/92 later suit no. 338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no. 434/16 was amended as electricity was disconnected meanwhile. In amended prayer restoration of electricity connection was sought 03.07.1992 Plaintiff had received bill of Rs.
33,32,165/- which was challenged in a separate suit bearing no.
624/92 later suit no. 339/94 and finally 435/16 (which suit is subject matter of present appeal) 26.12.16 suit no. 404/92 later suit no.
338/94, 205/16 and finally suit no.
434/16 was dismissed. This order is impugned in connected RCA 44/17.
07.03/19 suit bearing no. 624/92 later suit no. 339/94 and finally 435/16 was decreed in favor of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.This order is impugned in RCA 47/19 (present appeal).
FINDINGS ON POINTS OF DETERMINATION
34. First point for determination is:
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 17 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
(i) Whether Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon decision in Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010 while the same was stayed?
35. The submission by learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is dated 07.03.2019, whereas decision in case titled as Lalit Gulati is dated 02.12.2010 which was stayed by learned LPA Bench and finally the LPA decision came only on 10.01.2023. Thus, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon decision in Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010 is without merit. This contention is rejected. Their was no stay upon learned trial Court to decide the suit. Further it is not in dispute that decision in Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010 was upheld even till Hon'ble Supreme Court if India.
36. Further in case titled as Lalit Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated December, 2, 2010 it has been held in para no.21 that impugned notification dated 16/19.05.2008 which excludes the case under litigation at any form at any level are struck down as violative of article 14.Same reads as under:
"..21. Consequently, the portion of Clauses (1) and (2) of the impugned Notification dated 16th /19th May 2008 which excludes "the cases under litigation at any forum and at any level" is struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A consequential mandamus is issued to the RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 18 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON Respondent to extend the benefit of the impugned Notification dated 16th/19th May 2008 to the two Petitioners and all others who are similarly situated. ......."
37. In LPA no.724/2011 dated 10.01.2023 case titled as Govt. of Delhi vs. Ranbir Singh, order dated 02.12.10 was upheld. In para no.9 and 10 was held that cases of misuse / excess charges are also covered by the notification and the object of the notification was to write off all stale claims. Same is as under:
".....9. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that this case pertains to the misuse of the electricity connection, therefore, the impugned order does not cover that aspect. However, as noted in para no. 3 of the impugned order in W.P. (C)8568/2009 apropos M/s Modelama Exports, New Delhi had impugned bills placed by the Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB.') including certain amounts under the heading "Misuse/excess charges". The impugned order has dealt with this issue as well.
10.The Notification has rightly been seen in the larger context for the purpose it sought to achieve i.e., write-off of all stale claims, some of which related to a period almost a decade before the bills were raised. That objective cannot be denied to the petitioners who have approached court and have litigated in terms of what they thought was the legal remedy. In any case, 2023/DHC/001588 the issue of misuse or excess charges as may be, has not yet been proven. Therefore, those claims also would be covered under the said Notification and would need to be waived off. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order..........."
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 19 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
38. Order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA no.724/2011 dated 10.01.2023 was upheld vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Ranbir Singh in S.L.P. No.35170/2023.
39. Since their was no stay on trial Court to decide the suit and ultimately decision in decision in Lalit Gulati Vs. GNCT of Delhi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.12.2010 was upheld even by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the first point of determination is decided against the appellant.
40. Second point for determination is:
ii). Whether findings in suit no. 205/14 (434/16) tilted as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. NDPL and Ors. which was decided by Learned Civil Judge on 26.12.2016 which was decided on 26.12.2016 in favour of appellant operates as resjudicata and impugned judgment is thus illegal?
41. The contention by Counsel for the appellant that in suit no. 205/14 (434/16) tilted as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. NDPL and Ors. which was decided by Learned Civil Judge on 26.12.2016 decided on 26.12.2016 findings were returned in favour of the appellant herein. These findings are binding. So the second suit i.e. civil suit no. 435/16 also ought to have been decided in favour of the appellant herein are without merit. Same is rejected.
42. In the earlier suit (suit no. 205/14) (434/16) tilted as Sanjeev Kumar Tandon Vs. NDPL and Ors. which was decided by Learned Civil RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 20 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON Judge on 26.12.2016 the prayer was for permanent injunction restraining defendant from disconnecting supply of connection on basis of notice dated 27.03.1992. Further amended prayer was for mandatory injunction seeking restoration of electricity connection. Whereas in the second suit(civil suit no. 435/16) prayer was on a different cause of action wherein challenge was laid to bills raised interalia on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, load report, inspection report, process of raising bill and that bill could not have been raised for more than 6 months period. Further notice dated 27.03.1992(which was challenged in the earlier suit (suit no. 205/14)) was only regarding breach of conditions of supply. Since the 'matter directly and substantially in issue' was different in both cases,res judicata does not apply. It has also rightly been held in impugned judgment in para 17 that defendant/TPDDL was required to prove by independent evidence in present suit that their was subletting of electricity supply, excess load was being used and that plaintiff/Sanjeev Kumar committed irregularities. Same was not done.
43. Defendant in present suit further failed to explain as to how wires recovered from spot of 10 mm inches could take load of 42 KW. No evidence on behalf of defendant that wires were subsequently changed was lead. As to how bill starting from 27.04.89 was raised when banquet hall in question was started only on 18.11.1990 was not explained by the defendant in suit. No fault with these findings of learned trial Court was pointed out during arguments.
RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 21 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON
44. Further once cases under litigation have been ordered to have been given benefit of notification dated 16/19.05.2008 issued by department of power. Defendant was rightly permanently restrained from realizing the bill of Rs.33,32,165.26/-( as held in case titled as Lalit Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated December, 2, 2010).
45. Second point for determination is also answered against the appellant.
46. As a result, to the present appeal fails because the appellant has utterly failed to prove any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2019. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The judgment and decree of the Ld Trial Court dated 07.03.2019 is upheld.
47. No pending application was pressed during arguments. Pending applications,if any are disposed off.
48. File of the appeal be consigned to record room. A copy of this order along with the TCR be sent back to the learned Trial Court Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI immediately by the Ahlmad. BALI Date: 2024.11.27 17:06:40 +0530 (Vikram Bali) District Judge-02, North Announced in the open Court. Rohini Court Complex, Rohini (Order contains 22 pages) Delhi/27.11.2024 RCA DJ No. 47 - 2019 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. Page no. 22 of 22 Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR TANDON