Mr. Aakash v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4602/2026 & CM APPL. 22476-22477/2026 MR. AAKASH .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Komal Sharma, Mr. Shashank, Mr.

Vinod Kumar Sharma and Mr. Vipin Kaushik, Advocates versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED .....Respondent Through:

Mr.

Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates with Mr. Amit Singh, AGM Legal (TPDDL)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 17.04.2026 1.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the speaking order passed by the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

respondent, i.e. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) on 19th March, 2026 is completely erroneous and proceeds on a speculative basis that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter. She further submits that the laboratory reports relied upon by the respondent/TPDDL do not establish the fact that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity connection. 3.

Mr.

Manish Kumar Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the respondent/TPDDL, on advance notice, submits that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, i.e. whether the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter or not and whether the petitioner has connected load in excess of the sanctioned load, are all disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Reliance in this regard is placed on the order dated 1st July, 2024, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 9215/2007 titled "Kishan Singh Shokeen v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited" and other connected matters.

4.

The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order are set out below: "11. However, the present is not the case where any of the exigencies as mentioned in the aforementioned paragraphs are met. More importantly, this is not the case wherein, any fundamental right of the petitioner was violated. Moreover, the petitioner has all the rights to approach the Civil Court. Having considered the nature of the grievance raised in the writ petition, it is found that the alleged violations of Rules and Regulations, if any can also be gone into by the concerned Court. Essentially the issue whether the petitioner was involved in the alleged theft of electricity or not perhaps may not be amenable to adjudication by this court in exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Therefore, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Civil Court or avail any other remedy, available as per law, for ventilation of his/her grievances." [Emphasis Supplied.] The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

5.

In light of the aforesaid legal position, counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court. She submits that two (2) weeks' time be granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

6.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court within two (2) weeks from today.

7.

Mr. Srivastava submits that no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent/TPDDL against the petitioner in respect of the theft bill for a period of two (2) weeks.

AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 17, 2026 ds The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.