Disposed¶48

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Sunil Johry & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2025LPA/306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd; BSES Yamuna Power Ltd; electricity distribution companies; writ petition maintainability; Article 12; State; learned Single Judge; Para 69 set aside; issue no. 1; issue left open; LPA 297/2024 to LPA 306/2024; CM APPLs; High Court of Delhi; Dinesh Mehta J; Vimal Kumar Yadav J; disposed 12.12.2025; no costs; no quantum.

What did the court decide?

Partial setting aside of the impugned Single Judge judgment (Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts qua issue no. 1, the maintainability holding); the maintainability question expressly left open for future writ petitions; captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications stand disposed of. ¶48

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Sunil Johry & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the appellants — the Electricity Distribution Companies — i.e., whether they are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India (framed below as issue no. 1).

¶46

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings and the learned Single Judge's judgment, the Division Bench was of the view that the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions against the Electricity Distribution Companies was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted by counsel.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1 (maintainability) were set aside, with the observation that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies shall remain open if it arises in any other writ petition, and the parties shall be free to make their submissions in that regard.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, Division Bench (Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ.) — Batch of ten Letters Patent Appeals, LPA 297/2024 to LPA 306/2024, filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. The learned Single Judge had rejected the respondents' writ petitions on merits but, though neither raised nor argued by the parties, had himself framed and decided the issue of maintainability against the electricity distribution companies, holding them to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Held: (i) on perusal of the pleadings and the Single Judge's judgment, the maintainability issue was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted; (ii) Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1 were set aside; (iii) the question of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies shall remain open if it arises in any other writ petition, with liberty to the parties to make submissions. Captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications stood disposed of (order dated 12.12.2025). No precedent on maintainability was laid down.

¶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 12:45:38

¶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 12:45:38

¶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 12:45:38

¶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 12:45:38

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Sunil Johry & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Sunil Johry & 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.