Smt. Santosh Kumari v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. And ORS.

$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2846/2018 & CM No.11535/2018 % Date of decision : 27th April, 2018 SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through :

Ms. Neha Garg, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. AND ORS.

... Respondents Through :

Mr. R.S. Lathwal, Adv. for R-1.

Ms. Renuka Arora and Mr. Sumit Rana, Advs. for R2/DSIDC.

Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Mr. Kamlesh Anand and Ms.

Yamini Mittal, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1.

The original record of the DSIDC - respondent no.2 relating to the petitioner has been produced before us.

2.

It appears that the DSIDC had allotted an industrial plot under the relocation scheme of industries to M/s Prakash Art Press, a business which was being run by Late Shri Prem Prakash, the deceased husband of the petitioner.

3.

The DSIDC had processed the request for substitution of the petitioner's name in place of her deceased husband. However, in terms W.P.(C)No.2846/2018 Page 1 of 2

of the relocation scheme, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit regarding closing of the business at the existing location which is a non-conforming area. The petitioner appears to have addressed a letter dated 12th April, 2010 refusing to submit such undertaking. 4.

It is submitted by Ms. Renuka Arora, ld. counsel for the DSIDC - respondent no.2 that subject to the petitioner submitting such undertaking, the DSIDC would process the file within a period of three weeks thereafter. Let the same be so done.

5.

It is stated by Ms. Neha Garg, ld. counsel for the petitioner, on instruction by the petitioner - Smt. Santosh Kumari, that the petitioner shall take the steps in this regard within four days from today. Let the same be so done.

6.

In order to enable the petitioner to take steps to close the existing unit, the respondent no.1 may restore the electricity to the premises of the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today. 7.

In view of the above directions, the prayers made in this writ petition stand satisfied. No further orders are therefore, called for in this writ petition.

8.

This writ petition as well as the pending application are disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 27, 2018/aj W.P.(C)No.2846/2018 Page 2 of 2