Disposed¶48

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Gulshan Kumar Gambhir & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2025LPA/297/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd; BSES Yamuna Power Ltd; LPA 297/2024 to LPA 306/2024; Delhi High Court Letters Patent Appeal; maintainability of writ petition against electricity distribution companies; Article 12 'State'; writ jurisdiction; learned Single Judge judgment Para 69 set aside; issue expressly left open; bench Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav; order dated 12.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1; the maintainability question expressly left open for any future writ petition; captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶48

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Gulshan Kumar Gambhir & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant electricity distribution companies are a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, such that writ petitions against them are maintainable (issue no. 1 in the Single Judge's judgment). +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court held that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against the Electricity Distribution Companies was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

This Court set aside the part of the Single Judge's judgment comprising Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Court expressly left open the question of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies: it shall remain open if it arises in any other writ petition, and the parties shall be free to make their submissions on it.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch order (dated 12.12.2025) of Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav JJ., High Court of Delhi, disposing of ten Letters Patent Appeals (LPA 297/2024 to LPA 306/2024, with associated CM APPLs.) filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Counsel for the appellant companies submitted that, although the learned Single Judge had rejected the Respondents-writ petitioners' petitions on merit in the companies' favour and no writ-jurisdiction objection had been raised or argued, the Single Judge nonetheless framed and decided the issue of maintainability of writ petitions against the appellants, holding them to be a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, without noticing that the issue had already been set at rest by the High Court. On perusal of the pleadings and the Single Judge's judgment, this Court held that the maintainability issue was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted; it set aside Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1, while observing that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies shall remain open if it arises in any other writ petition, with the parties free to make submissions. Captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶1

$~7 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

- LPA 297/2024, CM APPL. 21973/2024 & CM APPL. 21976/2024 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶3

versus

¶4

GULSHAN KUMAR GAMBHIR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶5

¶6

- LPA 298/2024, CM APPL. 21982/2024 & CM APPL. 21985/2024

¶7

BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam V., Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶8

versus

¶9

INDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 9

¶10

- LPA 299/2024, CM APPL. 21987/2024 & CM APPL. 21990/2024

¶11

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶12

versus

¶13

ABDUL RASHID ANSARI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 10 + LPA 300/2024, CM APPL. 21991/2024 & CM APPL. 21994/2024 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anupam Varma, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:14

¶16

versus

¶17

DES RAJ MADAN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶18

11 + LPA 301/2024, CM APPL. 21995/2024 & CM APPL. 21998/2024

¶19

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. versus RAVINDER SETH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 12 + LPA 302/2024, CM APPL. 21999/2024 & CM APPL. 22002/2024 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. versus KUMUD CHANDRA DEKA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 13 + LPA 303/2024, CM APPL. 22003/2024 & CM APPL. 22006/2024 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. versus

¶20

HARI PRAKASH CHHIKARA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶21

14 + LPA 304/2024, CM APPL. 22010/2024 & CM APPL. 22013/2024 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:14

¶24

versus

¶25

NARENDER KUMAR MARWAH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶26

¶27

- LPA 305/2024, CM APPL. 22015/2024 & CM APPL. 22019/2024

¶28

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant

¶29

Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶30

versus

¶31

PRAMODH SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶32

¶33

- LPA 306/2024, CM APPL. 22021/2024 & CM APPL. 22024/2024

¶34

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.

¶35

versus

¶36

SUNIL JOHRY & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

¶37

CORAM:

¶38

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

% 12.12.2025

¶41

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, while deciding the writ petitions, although the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions filed by the Respondents-writ petitioners on merit but decided the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions against the Appellants, holding them to be a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:14

¶44

He further submitted that since the issue on merit was covered in favour of the Appellant companies, they did not raise the issue or objection that they were not amenable to writ jurisdiction, before the learned Single Judge.

¶45

All the counsel for the Appellant companies submitted that though neither raised nor argued, learned Single Judge has framed the issue of maintainability of writ petition and held the same against them without noticing the fact that the issue of maintainability of writ petition has already been set at rest by the High Court.

¶46

On perusal of the pleadings and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against the Electricity Distribution Companies, was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted.

¶47

Be that as it may. We set aside the part of the judgment, particularly Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1, however, while observing that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies shall remain open, if the same arises in any other writ petition and the parties shall be free to make their submissions in this regard.

¶48

Captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶49

DINESH MEHTA, J

¶50

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J

¶51

DECEMBER 12, 2025/ hk

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:14

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Gulshan Kumar Gambhir & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Gulshan Kumar Gambhir & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raman Singla Vs Ircon International Ltd. & Anr.

Mohammad Javed Malik Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Rajat Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chetan Kumar Mishra Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Des Raj Madan & Anr.

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Ravinder Seth & Anr.