Delhi High Court - Orders
Bses Yamuna Power Limited vs Sunil Rathiya on 3 October, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12876/2023
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava and Mr.
Moksh Arora, Advocates.
versus
SUNIL RATHIYA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 03.10.2023 CM APPL. 50701/2023 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12876/2023 & CM APPL. 50700/2023 (for stay)
1. Issue notice. Notice may be served to the respondent by all permissible modes, including through learned counsel who appeared on his behalf before the learned Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ["CGRF"].
2. The petitioner - BSES Yamuna Power Limited ["BSES"] assails an order dated 31.05.2023 by which the CGRF has directed it to supply electricity to the respondent at his premises H.No. US-7/ A, SF, Gali No. 1, Balmiki Mandir, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-92.
3. The contention of Mr. Manish Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the direction is contrary to the safety regulations W.P.(C) 12876/2023 Page 1 of 2 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 04/10/2023 at 22:24:36 incorporated in Rules 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and Regulations 60 and 61 of Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. He submits that CGRF has accepted BSES's position that the line, which is a 66 KV HT line, can be established only if it has a horizontal clearance of 2.3 meters from the nearest building; whereas the horizontal clearance in the present case is only 2.08 meters from the premises of the respondent. Mr. Srivastava submits that the direction of CGRF, granting a connection to the respondent on the conditions mentioned, is erroneous as the petitioner is not legally empowered to depart from the minimum safety requirements. Without prejudice to this contention, Mr. Srivastava also submits that CGRF has erred in treating the present deviation as a marginal one, as there is approximately a 10% shortfall in the horizontal clearance.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner has made a prima-facie case for stay of the impugned direction of the CGRF. The direction will remain stayed until the next date of hearing.
5. Respondent is directed to file a counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed in two weeks thereafter.
6. List on 05.02.2024.
PRATEEK JALAN, J OCTOBER 3, 2023 SS/ W.P.(C) 12876/2023 Page 2 of 2 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 04/10/2023 at 22:24:36