w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Basant Projects Ltd. v/s Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

    W.P.(C) No.1275 of 2003
    Decided On, 12 March 2004
    At, High Court of Delhi
    For the Petitioner: Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Jayant Nath, Sachin Chopra, Advocates.

Judgment Text
Manmohan Sarin, J.


With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking restraint on the respondent/BSES from disconnecting the temporary electric connection, installed at premises bearing Plot No.6, M.L.U. Pocket, Sector 12, Dwarka, Delhi.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly noted:

Petitioner had purchased the plot in question in a DDA auction and after the sanction of plot, it raised construction. However, petitioner had only been sanctioned and provided a temporary electric connection, which apart from not catering to the needs of the consumers, is cost prohibitive.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent / BSES as also DDA. Mr. Jayant Nath on behalf of respondent / BSES submits that DDA was to give BSES the 4th plot for setting up the sub-station, which had not been provided. Besides, he submits that DDA was sharing the cost of electrification with DVB (now BSES). However, after the privatization of DVB as BSES, DDA has been dragging its feet and hedging the issue.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that the Regulatory Authority in one of the proceedings, initiated by DDA, has passed an order, directing that the earlier system, wherein the cost of electrification was shared between DVB and DDA, shall continue. Let DDA notify the respondent / BSES of the terms and conditions for licensing of the 4th plot, requirement of which was indicated by BSES belatedly, as per DDS. Both DDA and BSES shall within a period of two months from today finalize the licence terms for the 4th plot, as also sharing of cost, etc., as required for electrification. Thereafter, BSES shall ensure that within eight months from today, the electrification work is completed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer that the plot that was auctioned by DDA was auctioned with the assurance that the infrastructure and amenities would be available. The electrification has not even been undertaken except for temporary connection provided. In these circumstances, as a period of two years has already elapsed without any default on the part of petitioner, I think this is a fit case that direction ought to issue to BSES that a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t least for a period of eight months, during which the electrification is to be completed by it, petitioner would be charged the tariff, as if it was a permanent connection. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.