‘ PUBLISHED IN http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO(s). 103 OF 2013
DR. MEENA CHAUDHARY @DR. MEENA P.N.SINGH Petitioner(s)
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With application for permsision to appear and argue in person and office
Date: 25/06/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
For RR No. 1/BSES Ms. Anjali Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Bashte, Adv.
For RR No. 3/UOI Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
|The Writ Peittion is disposed of in terms of the signed order. |
|[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] |
|COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL) NO. 103 of 2013
DR. MEENA CHAUDHARY @
DR. MEENA P.N.SINGH ….. APPELLANT
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ORS……. RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for
respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner has been in occupation of D.D.A. Flat No. 1260,
Sector D, Pocket – I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Electricity was being
supplied to the aforesaid premises and the registered consumer of the
supply of electricity was Brahmanand Sharma. Meter No. 9922128D1 was
also installed in the premises for metering the consumption of
electricity. The petitioner’s case is that when she was away for
three days to Patna from 28th to 30th July, 2007, N.K. Mishra and Anil
Jain in collusion with the employees of respondent No. 1 removed the
meter of the house and made direct supply to the premises.
Thereafter, in the absence of electric meter a provisional bill for
the period 15th October, to 15th November, 2007 for ` 640/- was raised
for supply of electricity to the premises in question. She made a
complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police(Southern Range), New
Delhi regarding removal of the meter but no action as yet has been
taken to restore the meter. On the other hand, a criminal case has
been0 initiated against her for theft of electricity. She moved the
Delhi High Court for restoring electricity to the premises but she did
not get any relief for restoration of electricity. She has,
therefore, filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for appropriate relief regarding disconnection
and restoration of electricity.
3. On 17th June, 2013, we issued notice confined to respondent Nos.
1 and 3 and in response to notice respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have
appeared through their respective counsel.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that
because of theft of electricity by the petitioner, proceedings are
pending in the Electricity Court under Section 135 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and because of non-cooperation on the part of the
petitioner, the electricity theft case has been adjourned sine die.
5. In this writ petition, we are not concerned with the electricity
theft case that is pending before the Electricity Court and it is for
the Electricity Court to decide the case in accordance with law. In
this writ petition, we are concerned with the supply of electricity to
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity
6. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is
the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner
or occupier of any premises within its area. [See Chandu Khamaru v.
Nayan Malik Others (2011) 12 SCC 314]. In this case, we find that
instead of ensuring that electricity is supplied to the occupant of
the premises in question in accordance with the provisions of Section
43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent No. 1 is taking resort
to a defence to ensure that electricity is not supplied in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. The facts are very clear that there
was a meter installed and the supply of electricity was to a
registered consumer. If for some reason or the other, the meter is no
longer there and the registered consumer is no longer willing for the
supply of electricity, the occupier of the premises is entitled as of
her own right under Section 43 to supply of electricity and respondent
No. 1 should have ensured that such supply was restored to the
petitioner after complying with all necessary formalities as provided
under the Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
7. We, accordingly, direct respondent No. 1 to restore electricity
supply to the premises in occupation of the petitioner within 48 hours
from today and we direct that the petitioner will comply with all
necessary formalities for the aforesaid purpose for restoration of
electricity. In case, the owner of the premises for any reason is not
willing for supply of electricity in his name then the supply shall be
made in the name of the petitioner who is the occupant of the premises
and the meter shall also be installed in the name of the petitioner
and the petitioner will be liable for all charges of consumption of
electricity. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands
June 25, 2013.