Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar vs B S E S Yamuna Power Limited on 16 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, SHAHADRA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Varun Chandra, DJS
Civil Suit No: 468/22
Sh. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Munesh Kumar
R/o Plot no. 458/466 (old no. 32),
Gali no. 8, Friends Colony,
Industrial Area, Delhi-110095
... Plaintiff
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Limited
Through its Manager/Head O & M
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,
New Delhi-110092
... Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.04.2022
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS: 16.01.2025
DATE OF DECISION: 16.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunctions.
2. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the actions of the defendant has filed the present suit and prayed as under:-
Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA Page No.1 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:26:22 +0530 "1. Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant and their officials, employees, agents, legal heirs and other from carrying out/functioning the aforesaid electricity poll no. DGNPG19251 with loaded heavy voltage electricity wire cables which is specifically shown in photographs attached herewith the plaint/suit.
2. Pass a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant and their officials, employees, agent, legal heirs and other to reduce or remove the heavy loaded electricity voltage wire cables from the poll no. DGNPG19251 established/installed near the plaintiff's factory/plot no. 458/466 Old no. 32) Gali no. 8, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi-110095.
3. Pass a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant and their official, employees, agent, legal heirs and other to shift/take forward the aforesaid poll about 3-4 feet far away from the present establishment/factory (plot) of the plaintiff.
4. Pass a decree for damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to pay the compensation as losses/damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month with interest to the plaintiff.
Any other and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble court may be deems fit and proper under the above circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff."
3. The case of the plaintiff as discernible from the plaint and documents filed along with is that he is running a factory in the name and style of "A. K. Engineering" situated at 458/466 (Old no. 32), Ground and First Floor, Gali no. 8, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi-110095; that an electricity pole vide no. DGNPG19251 is installed in front of the plaintiff's factory which is loaded with heavy voltage wires cables and no sufficient distance is left between the said factory; that the said pole is dangerous for the public due to heavy Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.2 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:26:29 +0530 loading of wires cables at the said pole and the said pole had caught fire with shot circuit many times due to heavy loaded of the electric wires; that the plaintiff has requested the defendant several times to reduce the load of heavy voltages wires from the said pole or remove the same but nothing is done from the defendant side till today and the plaintiff has also requested the defendant to make distance between poll and said factory to forward the said poll as 3-4 feet from the present installation but no official is interested to do the same; that the plaintiff had made a written application dated 01.01.2019 to the defendant's officials for forwarding the aforesaid dangerous electric wires pole as 3-4 feet away from the said factory and no actions taken by the defendant; that the defendant had sent a notice dated 05.01.2019 to the father of the plaintiff, namely, Sh. Munesh Kumar for violation of minimum clearance of electrical lines/installation from the building/structures/balconies/verandas/roof/chhajja etc; that the plaintiff had replied the aforesaid notice which was duly received by the defendant and the plaintiff has also made an application under RTI Act dated 01.04.2019, the same was received by the defendant and the defendant had replied the same; that the senior officials of the defendant had visited the factory so many times but no action being taken by them; that due to the aforesaid dangerous poll, no new workmen is ready to work in the said factory; that the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 21.06.2019 to the defendant and despite being served with the aforesaid legal notice, no reply was given by the defendant till date; that aggrieved by the actions of the defendant, the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.Civil Suit No. 468/22
Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.3 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:26:36 +0530
4. Upon service of the summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing its written statement. In order to contest this suit, the defendant has inter-alia pleaded in its written statement that the plaintiff had filed the application dated 01.01.2019 for shifting of pole 3-4 feet away from the subject premises; that on inspection, it was found by the defendant that the minimum distance required to be maintained between the outer most portion of the building/structure/balcony etc and electrical lines/installation of BSES-YPL in terms of Central Electricity Act Regulations, 2010 were not maintained and the plaintiff was served with accessibility notice dated 05.01.2019 and whereby the plaintiff was asked to maintain the requisite distance; that the cable touching the premises of the plaintiff is solely on account of illegal construction carried out by the plaintiff; that the defendant had not received any complaint from the plaintiff regarding the fire on pole and never been any complaint of any fire on the aforesaid pole; that the official of the defendant ever felt the aforesaid pole is heavily loaded or is dangerous or harmful and the present suit may be dismissed.
5. In the replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court, on 29.05.2023:-
"(1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
Page No.4 of 26 2025.04.16
13:26:43
+0530
Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant thereby directing the defendant to reduce or remove the heavy loaded electricity voltage wires from the electricity poll no. DGNPG19251 as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant thereby directing the defendant to shift the electricity poll no. DGNPG19251 as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of losses/damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month? OPP (4) Relief, if any. ."
7. During the trial of this suit, one witness viz. PW1, Sh. Amit Kumar was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and one witness viz. DW1, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Senior DGM from BSES, O & M, GT Road, Delhi was examined in support of the case of the defendant. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are not being discussed, at this stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
8. To adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. D. P. Katyan, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and Ms. Ritu Gupta, Ld. Advocate for the defendant on 24.10.2024.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED :
9. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is running a factory at 458/466 (Old No.32), Ground & First Floor, Gali Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
Page No.5 of 26 2025.04.16
13:26:49
+0530
No. 8, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi-110095 in the name & style of "A. K. Engineering" registered under a license issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation under section 417 of D.M.C. Act. It is submitted that the stove parts as MS Pipes etc. are manufactured in the aforesaid factory. The plaintiff is a proprietor of the aforesaid factory. (The License of the said factory is filed for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court and the same is also exhibited as PW-1/2).
10. He argued that the plaintiff is a bonafide consumer of the defendant and regularly paying the consumption charges/bills. The electricity meter vide CA No.152665069 is in the name of plaintiff and is installed at the first floor of the said factory/plot and another meter vide CA No. 151761529 is installed at the ground floor of the said factory in the name of plaintiff father. The electricity charges/bills of both the meters are regularly being paid and no dues is pending till date. (The electricity bills dated 23-12-2021 and 26-03- 2022 are filed for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court and the same are exhibited as PW-1/3 (collectively).
11. He argued that an Electricity Pole vide no. DGNPG190S1 is highly loaded with high voltage wires/ cables. Such poll is installed in front of the plaintiff's factory and no sufficient distance is left between the outer wall of the said factory/property and such pole. The approximate 10-11 high voltage electric wire/cables or more are passing being touched the factory/property of the plaintiff from the aforesaid pole and a Guchha/bulk of high voltage wires/cables is also created at the said pole due to heavy load of the wires/cable which is Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
Page No.6 of 26 2025.04.16
13:26:59
+0530
very dangerous for the general public and specially for the said factory as well as employees who uses to work in the said factory. (The 18 photographs of the said Pole and dangerous high voltage wires/cables have been filed for perusal and the same are exhibited as PW-1/4 (collectively).
12. He argued that earlier, the said pole has caught fire with shot circuit so many times due to heavy loaded of the high voltage electric wires and the said PVC cables has also fallen after melting on the roof/balcony of the factory/property, thus it is always possible to make any casualty or accident and the said factory may also catch the fire from the said pole which is dangerous for the said factory as well as its workers. The said pole is also dangerous for the family of the plaintiff. It is great possibility that in future the said pole can result to irreparable loses and injuries. The plaintiff has informed severe times to the defendant officials to stop the fire and save the life of his employees whenever the said pole catches the fire due to heavy load of high voltage wire cables.
13. He argued that the plaintiff has requested the defendant/BSES severally to reduce the load of heavy voltage wires from the said pole or remove the same but nothing is done from the defendant side till today. It is great apprehension that big incident could occur in future if the electric wires load are not reduce or removed from the said pole OR the said pole is not shifted far away from the said factory. The plaintiff has also requested the defendant to make distance between poll and just outer wall of said factory/plot and asked to forward the Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.7 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:05 +0530 said poll as 3-4 feet vertically from the present installation but the officials had not given attention towards the plaintiffs requests. The plaintiff and its factory workers have been harassed due to the neglected act of the defendant
14. He argued that the plaintiff had also made a written complaint/application dated 01-01-2019 to the BSES officials for shifting the aforesaid dangerous electric wires pole as 3-4 feet far away from the said factory/plot, the same was received by the defendant vide receipt No. 230 dated 02-01-2019 & 6197 dated 24- 01-2019 respectively but no attention is given towards the plaintiff's application. (The Complaint/Application dated 01-01-2019 made by plaintiff to BSES is filed for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court and the same is also exhibited as PW-1/5).
15. He argued that instead to take any reliable action on the application of the plaintiff, consequently as counter, the defendant gave a false notice dated 05-01-2019 to the plaintiff's father as reply to the application dated 01-01-2019 for making only harassment in the name of violation of minimum clearance of electrical lines/ installation from the building/ structures/ balconies/ verandas/roofs/chhaja(projection) etc.
16. He argued that neither the defendant/BSES issued any show cause notice or letter to the plaintiff regarding such pole and illegal construction before plaintiffs complaint/application dated 01-01-2019 nor the MCD/Delhi Police had given any show cause notice or Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited signed by VARUN VARUN Page No.8 of 26 CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:12 +0530 demolition notice to the plaintiff till date even before or after forwarding the letter/complaint forwarded/ made by defendant/BSES against the plaintiff regarding unauthorized construction after making the plaintiff's complaint dated 01-01-2019. While the real fact is that the plaintiff has never constructed his factory building or its part or any chhajja/projections since purchasing the said built-up property/factory i.e. 25 years ago as well as after installation of the said electrical Pole/Mains. It is old constructed factory and the plaintiff in person has never made any unauthorized construction on such factory/ property. It is specially submitted that no status or action taken report is submitted or given also by the office of EDMC, SHO, Chief Electrical Inspector, Delhi Govt. and SDM after making the complaints by the defendant/ BSES to these departments against the plaintiff regarding the unauthorised construction made near the pole. It is admitted facts as in cross examination dated 01-07-2024 as stated therein that no reply was ever received from the aforesaid authorities.
17. He argued that real fact is that when this pole was installed then this pole had not so heavy load of electric wires/cables but today it is very highly loaded with the very dangerous high voltage wires/cables. The plaintiff's father had also made the reply dated 28-02-2019 to the aforesaid notice dt. 05-01-2019 given by defendant which was received by the defendant vide receipt diary No. 7027 dated 01-03- 2019. (The Notice dated 05-01-2019 and its Reply dated 28-02-2019 are filed for perusal of the Hon'ble court and the same are exhibited as PW-1/6 and PW-1/7).
Digitally
Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by
VARUN
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.9 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16
13:27:18
+0530
18. He argued that the plaintiff also made an application under RTI Act dated 01-04-2019 the same was also received by the defendant vide receipt No. 01 dated 01-04-2019. The defendant also gave reply/response dated 08-05-2019 to the above said RTI Application being not entertained as applicability of RTI Act on BSES Yamuna Power Limited sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. RTI Application dated 01-04-2019 and its Reply dated 08-05- 2019 are filed for perusal of the Hon'ble Court and the same are exhibited as PW-1/8 and PW-1/9).
19. He argued that the seniors officials of the BSES have visited the factory so many times and they have felt/considered that in fact the aforesaid pole has heavy load of the electric cables and it is dangerous and harmful for the human being and goods and it is very much required to reduce the heavy load of cables and also found that the said pole has been not installed on equally distance then other poles and required to shift far away. It is specially stated that some other polls are established far away from the outer wall of other houses in Gali but the aforesaid pole is established just near the plot/factory of the plaintiff. It is specially submitted that the construction of the said plot was not properly constructed initially due to said high voltage wires loaded pole. Such poll has also not distance equal to other polls. All the polls are established on equal distance straight in one line except the alleged poll.
20. He argued that due to aforesaid dangerous poll, no new workman is ready to work in the said factory and exists employees are Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.10 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:25 +0530 working under the danger and threat of fire. Now the employee does not wish to work in factory in this circumstances and leaving the factory one by one. The plaintiff is bearing financial loss of income @ Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month constantly for the last 3-4 years til date. The plaintiff has suffered heavy economical loss therefore the defendant is liable to pay such damages.
21. He argued that the plaintiff sent also a legal notice dated 21-06- 2019 to the defendant received on 21-06-2019 but no response is given till date. No strict action is taken in respect of the aforesaid dangerous poll and heavy loaded electric wires/cables. The defendant was given last and final opportunity to reduce or remove the heavy load of electric wires from the aforesaid poll installed in front of the plaintiff or alternatively shift the said poll to forward having sufficient distance between the factory of the plaintiff and said pole without any conditions at only own your risk and cost within 30 days from receipt of this notice failing which you will be liable for further any consequences. (The Legal Notice dated 21-06-2019 is filed for perusal of the Hon'ble Court and the same is also exhibited as PW-1/10.
22. He argued that as per order of the Hon'ble Court both the parties agreed to visit on the site for making inspection of the pole regarding shifting the said danger pole and filing technical report of the same but the official of the defendant neither made visit and inspection nor file any technical report. It admitted fact that in the cross examination of the DW-1, it was admitted that "I do not remember exact date of the visit on behalf of the defendant so it's Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.11 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:31 +0530 mean no inspection was made. In earlier inspection, as per document E-mail dated 27-04- 2022) as Ex. DW-1/ P2 one inspection was made on 27-04- 2022 observed that Date of pole Erection -Pertain to Planning deptt. Dangerous to vicinity - Pertain to Safety and Possible to extend pole 2-3 feet from his plot-Petain to CES And earlier as per e-mail dated 25-04-2022(DW-1/P2) the same things were asked but neither such reports from Planning Department, Safety Department and CES was submitted to the office of the Department nor filed in the Hon'ble Court as per E-mail dated 23-05-2022 (W-1/P2) the same is yet to be awaited.
23. He argued that as per letter/e-mail dated 30-05-2022 as Ex. DW-1/P1, the said POLE can be shifted as per CES comments and considering the safety rules and CEA regulation. In earlier as per letter/email dated 27-05-2022 based on joint site visit, it was commented or observed that as It Seems that the building/balcony has been extended. Not Sure"
24. The pole can thus be shifted, based on network only , as proposed with stay wire/strut pole & after clearance from safety dept. to avoid vehicular obstruction as the pole is to be brought forward. It is specially submitted that the said POLE is already backward horizontally seen specifically in photographs exhibited as PW1/4) from other poles in the street so no apprehension for vehicular obstruction and it will not lead to accident.
25. He argued that that the DW-1 has admitted also in his cross Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.12 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:39 +0530 examination done on 08-05-2024 that I have not placed on record the report from the aforesaid departments" Planning Department, Safety Department and CES). I have received the aforesaid reports form the concerned department through e-mail as Ex. DW-1/1. The same email was forwarded to the legal department for taking appropriate action this regard but no report from the legal department is placed on record.
26. He argued that till date the defendant has not taken any strict action regarding to reduce the heavy load of electric wires or shifting the said poll from the factory on the requests made by the plaintiff so you are fully responsible for any injury, damages or compensation which may be happened due to fire or sparkling caught by the said highly electric voltage loaded pole. The defendant is a responsible person towards the general public and if the defendant is not taking any strict action immediately in this regard the he will be responsible for making any miss- happening or casualty
27. He argued that the official of defendant/ BSES cannot avoid their liabilities and duties towards the general public and properties as well as plaintiff. Instead of taking necessary action, the defendant is constantly threatening the plaintiff and the employees of the defendant always wish to take consideration from the plaintiff by way of showing false and forged estimation in the name of shifting charges and demanding the money for reducing the highly electric voltage load from the said pole or shifting the pole which is unlawful act and punishable offence. It is specifically submitted that it is proposed that Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.13 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:45 +0530 the plaintiff is ready to bear the nominal charges for shifting the said danger Pole for the sake of saving the life of his factory's employees as well as general public.
28. He argued that the safety of the general public should be first priority so required steps should be taken in the interest of justice and the official of the defendant are duty bound to reduce or remove the dangerous heavy voltage load of electric cables from the said poll or shift the pole at other safe place and to install the new poles with wires on your own costs and risk and also bear its maintenance himself.
29. He argued that the plaintiff has very much apprehension to happen a big miss-happening in the factory as well as with its employees or general public due to said heavy loaded wire cables poll, hence the defendant is required to direct him to take appropriate action regarding the said poll as well as heavy loaded dangerous wires cables, in the interest of general public and plaintiff's factory and its employees.
30. He argued that in the above circumstances the plaintiff has no other equal and efficacious remedies except to file the present case against the defendant and approach this Hon'ble Court for restraining the defendant from carrying out the said poll and also directing the defendant to take necessary steps for shifting the said poll.
31. Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the defendant argued that the Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.14 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:52 +0530 plaintiff filed an application dated 01.01.2019 shifting the electricity pole 3-4 feet far from the subject premises. Upon inspection, it was found that a safe distance required to be maintained as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 (CEA 2010) was not maintained between the pole and the subject premises. As such, the Plaintiff was served with an accessibility notice dated 05.01.2019 by way of which the he was asked to remove the unauthorized construction and maintain a safe distance with the pole.
32. He argued that shifting of the pole can take place as per clause 4 of Regulation 24 of the DERC (Supply Code & Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017. Accordingly, the plaintiff has to apply for the shifting of pole and provide an alternate space where it is technically feasible to shift the pole. Upon inspection, if it is found that the shifting of the pole is feasible, then a cost estimate is provided to the applicant which has to be borne by him.
33. He argued that the subject pole does not exist on the land of the Plaintiff and as such the Plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit. The plaintiff has failed to establish any prima facie case as no complaint in respect of fire on the subject pole has been filed by the Plaintiff with the defendant as alleged. Infact, there has never been any complaint of fire on the subject pole. The same Is apparent from EX. DW1/1.
2. He has argued regarding the Admission of Unauthorized Construction:
Civil Suit No. 468/22Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.15 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:27:59 +0530 a. Electricity is an essential commodity, b. The same can be transmitted only through effective distribution system including electric poles and cables. c. No person has right to object to same for any reasons whatsoever as long as same is done as per law of land.
d. As per the CEA 2010 for the safety issues, requisite distance has to be maintained and cables needs to be insulated. e. It is only on account of unauthorized construction safe distance is not maintained between the pole and cables on one hand and plaintiffs premises on other hand.
f. Thus, the safety issue as raised by plaintiff is only on account of his indulging in unauthorized construction as duly admitted by him during his cross examination held on 24.11.2023.
3. On the issue of reduction of load of cables from subject pole, he argued that:
a. The only way to distribute/transmit electricity is through/ wires/cables.
b. Loading on pole of cables depends on demand and augmentation of existing distribution system c. From the cross examination of DW-1 it is in admitted position on installation of extra transformer the load of cables on the subject pole stands reduce.
4. Ld. Advocate argued that unwillingness of the Plaintiff to Act:
Without prejudice and without in any manner admitting that subject pole needs to be shifted, the fact of the matter is that despite plaintiff being informed about the procedure of shifting, the plaintiff) has not provided any alternative land for the same.
Digitally
Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by
VARUN
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.16 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16
13:28:07
+0530
5. Ld. Advocate argued that disturbance in the network of electrical installations:
The electricity poles in localities are installed equi-distant from each other in order to support the wires going from pole to pole. Shifting of the pole only on apprehension of danger of the plaintiff would disturb the alignment of existing network.
6. Ld. Advocate argued that there is no liability of the defendant for damages:
a. Regarding the damages of Rs.50,000/- per month along with interest being claimed by the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Plaintiff has not removed the unauthorized construction till date even after being served with the accessibility notice dated 05.01 .2019, This itself suggests that the Plaintiff is at fault and is not willing to take safety measures on his part. In any case plaintiff has not led any evidence on the issue of damages and its quantum.
34. The issue wise findings of the present case is as follows: -
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant thereby directing the defendant to reduce or remove the heavy loaded electricity voltage wires from the electricity poll no. DGNPG19251 as prayed for? OPP
35. In respect of this issue, the case of the plaintiff is that that an electricity pole vide no. DGNPG19251 is installed in front of the plaintiff's factory which is loaded with heavy voltage wires cables and no sufficient distance is left between the said factory. The said pole is Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
Page No.17 of 26 2025.04.16
13:28:12
+0530
dangerous for the public due to heavy loading of wires cables at the said pole and the said pole has caught fire with shot circuit so many times due to heavy loaded of the electric wires. The plaintiff states that he has requested the defendant several times to reduce the load of heavy voltages wires from the said pole or remove the same but nothing is done from the defendant side till today and the plaintiff has also requested the defendant to make distance between poll and said factory to forward the said poll as 3-4 feet from the present installation but no official is interested to do the same. The plaintiff had made a written application dated 01.01.2019 to the defendant's officials for forwarding the aforesaid dangerous electric wires pole as 3-4 feet away from the said factory and no actions taken by the defendant.
36. Per contra, the case of the defendant in respect of this issue that the plaintiff had filed the application dated 01.01.2019 for shifting of pole 3-4 feet away from the subject premises. On inspection, it was found by the defendant that the minimum distance required to be maintained between the outer most portion of the building/structure/balcony etc and electrical lines/installation of BSES-YPL in terms of Central Electricity Act Regulations, 2010 were not maintained and the plaintiff was served with accessibility notice dated 05.01.2019 and whereby the plaintiff was asked to maintain the requisite distance. The cable touching the premises of the plaintiff is solely on account of illegal construction carried out by the plaintiff and the defendant had not received any complaint from the plaintiff regarding the fire on pole and never been any complaint of any fire on Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.18 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:28:18 +0530 the aforesaid pole. The official of the defendant ever felt the aforesaid pole is heavily loaded or is dangerous or harmful.
37. To prove his case qua this issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as witness viz. PW1, Sh. Amit Kumar. the defendant has examined one witness viz. DW1, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Senior DGM from BSES, O & M, GT Road, Delhi in support of its case.
38. During examination in chief, PW1, Sh. Amit Kumar has deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered his evidence which is Ex.PW1/A. He is relied upon the following documents viz., copy of Aadhaar Card of the deponent, Ex.PW1/1(OSR); copy of License of factory, Ex.PW1/2(OSR); copy of electricity bills dated 23.12.2021 and 26.03.2022, Ex.PW1/3(OSR)(Colly); 18 photographs of pole and dangerous heavy voltage wires/cables, Ex.PW1/4(Colly);
copy of application dated 01.01.2019 made by the deponent to BSES, Ex.PW1/5(OSR); notice dated 05.01.2019 issued by BSES, Ex.PW1/6; reply dated 28.02.2019 of the notice, Ex.PW1/7; RTI application dated 01.04.2019, Ex.PW1/8(OSR); reply dated 08.05.2019 of RTI application, Ex.PW1/9(OSR) and legal notice dated 21.06.2019 and postal receipts, Ex.PW1/10(Colly).
39. During examination in chief, DW1, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Senior DGM from BSES, O & M, GT Road, Delhi has deposed in line with the written statement and tendered his evidence which is Ex.DW1/A. He is relied upon the following document viz., computer generated copy of details of complaint received by the defendant from Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.19 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:28:26 +0530 01.04.2018 to 30.04.2022, Ex.DW1/1, report, Ex.DW1/P-2(Colly) and record of work carried out under the scheme for reduction of the load of wires, Ex.DW1/P-3 (Colly).
40. Heard. Perused.
41. The plaintiff in the present matter seeks for removing the heavy loaded electricity voltage wires from the electricity pole No.DGNPG19251. It has been brought to the notice of the Court, during the cross examination of the defendant that the correct pole number in actuality is DGNPG190S1. The plaintiff at the time of final arguments, argued on his behalf upon the correct pole number i.e. DGNPG190S1 only. While the plaintiff submits that multiple electrical wires forming a cluster at the stated electrical pole is the major issue and a site of hazard, the defendant has contested the same by stating that the electrical lines were reduced as per the scheme in the month of November-December, 2022 upon the installation of a sub-station in the locality.
42. The claim of the plaintiff that the dangerous installation of electrical wires have already caused instances wherein due to overloading, the PVC cables fell off after melting on the roof/balcony of factory/property has not been duly proved as no proof of any complaint being made of any such instances was brought to the notice of this Court by the plaintiff. Further, no written communication was brought on record between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein senior officials accepted the claim of the plaintiff and suggested Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.20 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:28:32 +0530 regarding removal of pole/decrease in total electrical supply, as claimed by the plaintiff.
43. Further, the concerned official appearing on behalf of defendant at the time of cross examination, had relied upon the work carried out by the defendant under the scheme for reduction of load of wires on the disputed electricity pole vide Ex.DW1/P-3 wherein it reflects that an amount of 45 kws was reduced from the electricity pole given the construction of a sub-station in the locality. The plaintiff failed to prove that the electrical pole was operating beyond permissible limits. Further, nothing contradictory could be brought on record at the time of cross examination of witness, DW-1, wherein he stated that all the electrical wires are being used on the pole. While the plaintiff relied to prove his claim through the 18 photographs submitted along with his plaint. Perusal of the same reflects that along with the electrical wires, a lot of other cables were also present causing the visible cluster of wires.
44. While discrepancies could also be seen on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff failed to shift the onus of proof upon the defendant.
45. In view of the same, plaintiff has not been able to prove on the balance of preponderance of probabilities that the stated electrical pole is loaded beyond the permissible limits. Therefore, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Digitally
signed by
Civil Suit No. 468/22 VARUN
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date:
Page No.21 of 26 2025.04.16
13:28:38
+0530
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant thereby directing the defendant to shift the electricity poll no. DGNPG19251 as prayed for? OPP
46. In respect of this issue, the case of the plaintiff is that that an electricity pole vide no. DGNPG19251 is installed in front of the plaintiff's factory which is loaded with heavy voltage wires cables and no sufficient distance is left between the said factory. The said pole is dangerous for the public due to heavy loading of wires cables at the said pole and the said pole has caught fire with shot circuit so many times due to heavy loading of the electric wires. The plaintiff has requested the defendant several times to reduce the load of heavy voltages wires from the said pole or remove the same but nothing is done from the defendant side till today and the plaintiff has also requested the defendant to make distance between poll and said factory to forward the said poll as 3-4 feet from the present installation but no official is interested to do the same. The plaintiff had made a written application dated 01.01.2019 to the defendant's officials for forwarding the aforesaid dangerous electric wires pole as 3-4 feet away from the said factory and no actions taken by the defendant.
47. Per contra, the case of the defendant in respect of this issue that the plaintiff had filed the application dated 01.01.2019 for shifting of pole 3-4 feet away from the subject premises. On inspection, it was found by the defendant that the minimum distance required to be Digitally Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by VARUN Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA Page No.22 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:28:44 +0530 maintained between the outer most portion of the building/structure/balcony etc and electrical lines/installation of BSES-YPL in terms of Central Electricity Act Regulations, 2010 were not maintained and the plaintiff was served with accessibility notice dated 05.01.2019 and whereby the plaintiff was asked to maintain the requisite distance. The cable touching the premises of the plaintiff is solely on account of illegal construction carried out by the plaintiff and the defendant had not received any complaint from the plaintiff regarding the fire on pole and never been any complaint of any fire on the aforesaid pole. The official of the defendant ever felt the aforesaid pole is heavily loaded or is dangerous or harmful.
48. Heard. Perused.
49. The plaintiff claims that the notice issued by the defendant as on 05.01.2019 was in the form of retaliation to his written application dated 01.01.2019, however, it is the plaintiff himself who has admitted the fact that the premise around which the electrical pole is constructed, has illegal construction due to which no building completion certificate qua the property has been brought on record on his behalf. He has admitted during his cross examination that the colony was duly electrified at the time of purchase of property i.e. approximately 25 years ago and the electricity connections were duly installed in the year 2017 to 2018. He has further accepted that the actual plot area is till the blue doors as shown in the site photographs.
Digitally
signed by
Civil Suit No. 468/22 VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited CHANDRA Date:
Page No.23 of 26 2025.04.16
13:28:52
+0530
50. The defendant vide report dated 12.05.2022, Ex.DW1/P-2 (Colly) and the notice issued to the plaintiff dated 05.01.2019 had specifically mentioned that as per regulation, the permissible limit for construction of electrical pole is of at least 1.2 meters from the property and the issue is arising due to the extended chhajja/illegal construction upon the property. It is further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff till date has not applied for the shifting of the electrical pole as per rules since no alternative possession was provided by him till date. No suggestion was given against the statement made at the time of plaintiff's evidence.
51. Perusal of record reflects that the shifting of the electricity pole for 3 to 4 meters vertically would result in the same being in the middle of the road approximately and may cause public nuisance. While the plaintiff states that no show cause notice from BSES/MCD/EDMC/SHO/SDM or the Delhi Government was received, he failed to bring on record any clearance from the concerned department for the same and neither were the stated officials called as witnesses to obtain it via status report. The photographs submitted only pertains to the stated electricity pole no. DGNPG190S1 and no other electricity pole of adjacent area has been photographed and brought on record for any comparison regarding the levels of electrical wires or construction near properties.
52. Thus, plaintiff has not been able to prove his claim on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, therefore, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Civil Suit No. 468/22 Digitally
signed by
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.24 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16
13:28:57
+0530
ISSUE NO. 3
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of losses/damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month? OPP
53. In respect of this issue, the case of the plaintiff is that due to aforesaid dangerous poll, no new workmen is ready to work in the said factory and the exist employee are working under the danger as well as threat of fire and they are leaving the same one by one. The plaintiff is bearing loss of income of Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per month constantly for the last 2-3 years and till now the plaintiff has suffered heavy economical loss/damages.
54. Per contra, the case of the defendant in respect of this issue is that the aforesaid pole is not dangerous and harmful and if the plaintiff has suffered heavy economical loss, the defendant is not responsible for the alleged loss. The plaintiff who is responsible for the unauthorized construction and there has never been any fire on the aforesaid pole.
55. As already discussed the plaintiff has not brought on record any complaint made by him regarding any mishap as claimed, from the electricity pole to any of the departments stated by him. Further, he has not been able to prove any damage caused whatsoever due to the cluster of electrical wires near his factory/property. The plaintiff has not led any evidence whatsoever regarding this issue.
Digitally
Civil Suit No. 468/22 signed by
VARUN
Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.25 of 26 CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16
13:29:04
+0530
56. Thus, plaintiff has not been able to prove any damage caused due to the hazardous nature/overloading of electrical wires and has failed to prove his claim on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
RELIEF
57. As a net result of the aforesaid findings, the present suit of the plaintiff filed against the defendant is dismissed as no order to cost.
58. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Note : This judgment contains 26 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2025.04.16 13:29:11 +0530 Pronounced in open court (Varun Chandra) today on 16.04.2025 CJ-02/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No. 468/22 Amit Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited Page No.26 of 26