Petitioner sought a direction for a separate electricity connection for the first floor of her property. The court recorded an agreement between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to apply for the connection, ordering dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv.
versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harsh Prakash, Adv. for R1 Mr. Nagmani Roy, Adv. for R2 with SPA Mr. Sanjay Goel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 07.05.2018
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“In view of the facts stated and submissions made hereinabove it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
Respondent No.2 has been served and represented through his counsel.
After hearing counsel for the parties for sometime, it is agreed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 shall apply for a fresh connection within three days for the first floor of property No. K-2/1, Model Town-II, New Delhi with the respondent No.1 by following necessary commercial formalities. If that be so, on such application, the respondent No.1 shall grant the connection to the first floor of the property as referred above.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states, there would not be any interruption in the electricity at the first floor of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity bills for consumption of electricity in future. The statements are taken on record.
It is made clear that the aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in CS No. 537852/2016 pending in the Rohini Court. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed itself, with regard to the title of the property in question.
The petition is disposed of.
CM No. 13831/2018
Dismissed as infructuous.
Dasti to both the parties under the signature of the Court Master.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MAY 07, 2018 /aky
MANJU GUPTA
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
