Vipin Suneja v. Bses

$~14 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6656/2017 VIPIN SUNEJA ..... Petitioner Through Mr Gaurav M. Liberhan, Advocate.

versus BSES ..... Respondent Through Mr Sunil Fernandes, Standing Counsel for BSES RPL with Mr Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocate for R1.

Mr Rahul Mukherjee, Mr Aseem Talwar, Mr Amogh Srivastava, Mr Saad Khan, Advocates for R2,3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 19.09.2018 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "a.

For Providing Independent Connection to The Petitioner at Khasra No. 3/2, Anandmangal Farm, Chandanhola, New Delhi - 110074.

b.

For Providing alternate Connection to The Petitioner at Khasra No. 3/2, Anandmangal Farm, Chandanhola, New Delhi - 74 and/or Shifting the Existing Electricity Connection From Khasra No. 3/4 Anandmangal Farm, Chandanhola, New Delhi - 74 to 3/2 Anandmangal Farm, Chandanhola, New Delhi - 110074 and transferring the same in the name of the Petitioner."

2.

The controversy in the present petition relates to electricity connection provided at farmhouse located in Khasra No. 3. It is stated that the said farm was owned by Sh R.C. Suneja (HUF). Admittedly, the electricity connection provided at the said farmhouse is in the name of Sh R.C. Suneja (HUF). It is stated that the HUF has since been partitioned and the petitioner and respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 each have separated their share in the said farmhouse. It is also stated that the farm house is partitioned by metes and bounds though walls demarcating the respective areas have not been raised. Apparently, their inter se disputes have not yet resolved and the petitioner claims that he is unable to access the electricity meter (which was provided to R.C. Suneja, HUF). In this contest, the petitioner requests that a separate electricity connection be provided to him. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (BSES) states that there is no difficulty in providing the separate connection to the petitioner, however, the farmhouse is a single unit (although stated to be demarcated) and it is difficult to ascertain the area that falls to the share of the petitioner and other respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2,3 & 4 insist that demarcation has been conducted and each of them own a definite demarcated area.

4.

In view of the above, BSES is directed to provide a separate connection to the petitioner. It is open for BSES to consider the farm as one unit for the purposes of load, security and other charges, and yet provide a separate connection. The petitioner agrees to bear all necessary charges including security deposit and additional charges. He also undertakes to pay

the consumption charges on a regular basis. BSES is further, directed to consider providing separate connections to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 on similar terms.

5.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 pkv