Dilraj Ahmed v. Bses Yamuna Power Limited
$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15015/2025 DILRAJ AHMED .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Adv. (Through VC) versus BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advs.
Mob: 9999061836 Email: moksh@kdatta.in
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
O R D E R
% 26.09.2025 1.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent for grant of electricity connection to the property situated at Jhuggi No. 76, Harijan Camp, Mandawali, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application dated 14th July, 2025, has been rejected by the respondent by way of multiple deficiency letters.
3.
It is submitted that the petitioner has on every occasion responded to the alleged deficiencies with documentary clarifications and supporting material, categorically proving that there is no ownership dispute in respect of the property in question, and no pre-existing electricity connection is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
installed at the property in question. A copy of the replies sent by the petitioner to the respondent, thereby making good the deficiencies, and requesting for electricity supply at the property in question, are collectively attached as Annexure P-6 (Colly).
4.
He further submits that Clause 11(1)(iv) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, mandates that any deficiency must be pointed out in one instance, and no fresh or supplementary objections can be raised thereafter. Thus, he submits that the respondent has acted in breach of this regulatory mandate by repeatedly manufacturing objections to indefinitely delay the grant of electricity connection.
5.
He submits that the Inspection Report dated 30th July, 2025, issued by the respondent, further confirms that no electricity connection exists at the property in question.
6.
He submits that the issuance of multiple contradictory deficiency letters, despite evidence to the contrary, establishes arbitrariness and mala fide intent on the part of the respondent.
7.
Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who submits that the officials of the respondent have taken action to inspect the property of the petitioner many times, but they have not been allowed to inspect the same.
8.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have good relations with his mother, and she may not be allowing the officials to inspect the property in question, though she lives in some other property.
9.
If that be the case, it is for the petitioner to ensure that proper The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
assistance is given to the officials of the respondent, for the purpose of an inspection.
10.
Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned officials of the respondent, i.e., BSES Yamuna Power Limited, shall inspect the property in question on 09th October, 2025, i.e., Thursday, at 11.00 a.m.
11.
The petitioner shall ensure that the petitioner is present at the property in question and assists the concerned officials of the respondent in carrying out the inspection.
12.
Upon inspection, if everything is found in order, the respondent shall take steps for granting an electricity connection to the petitioner, subject to compliance of all the nodal and commercial formalities by the petitioner. 13.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/SK The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.