Dismissed¶36

Raj Banti & Anr. v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 5151/2026; Amit Bansal J; BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL); transformer installation opposed in residential colony public park at M-Block, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar; MCD permission (Annexure P-4); Article 226 jurisdictional limits - siting decision of public utility not to be questioned absent mala fide; alternative sites (BRPL Office, Metro Station) suitability inquiry outside judicial domain; transformer occupies 10-15% of 21.4 m x 15.5 m park; writ petition dismissed, pending applications disposed; earlier W.P.(C) 4579/2026 disposed as premature.

What did the court decide?

It is an undisputed fact that the transformer is required to augment the electricity supply in the locality and is ultimately for the benefit of the residents therein. ¶9

Raj Banti & Anr. Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a restraint order against BRPL from installing a transformer in the public park at M-Block, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar ('subject park'), with a further direction to identify an alternative lawful site, should be granted. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

It is an undisputed fact that the transformer is required to augment the electricity supply in the locality and is ultimately for the benefit of the residents therein.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot question the decision of the respondents in locating the transformer in the subject park.

¶11

Key takeaways

There is no allegation of mala fide in the siting decision, as the installation of the transformer is towards a public utility.ratio¶11
Broadly, in terms of the dimensions noted (6.4 metres X 5.7 metres required, in a park of 21.4 metres X 15.5 metres), the transformer would not take up more than 10 to 15% of the total area of the subject park.ratio¶12
Considering that the transformer is for the overall benefit of the residents of the locality, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the respondents' decision.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.; order dated 17.04.2026) dismissed W.P.(C) 5151/2026, in which the petitioners sought a restraint order against BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) from installing a transformer in the public park at M-Block, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar ('subject park'), along with a direction to identify an alternative lawful site. An earlier petition (W.P.(C) 4579/2026) had been disposed of on 15.04.2026 as premature; MCD granted the installation permission the same day (Annexure P-4). Held: under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot question the respondents' siting decision - there is no allegation of mala fide, the transformer being required to augment electricity supply for the residents' benefit; broadly it would not occupy more than 10 to 15% of the 21.4 metres X 15.5 metres park; and adjudging whether the alternative sites proposed by the petitioners (BRPL Office, Metro Station) are more suitable would amount to an inquiry outside the domain of the Court. Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5151/2026 & CM APPL. 25211-25212/2026

¶4

RAJ BANTI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Prakhar Mithal and Mr. Arjun Katyal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Mr. Hardik Vashisht and Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocates for R-1/BSES. Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Addl. Counsel with Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for R-2/MCD. Ms. Manika Tripathy, standing counsel for DDA with Mr. Saksham and Ms. Yimcha Longchar, Advocates for R-3/DDA. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD/R-4.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 17.04.2026

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a restraint order against the respondent no.1/ BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) from installing a transformer in the public park situated at M-Block, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (‘subject park’). A further direction is sought that the respondent should identify an alternative lawful site for such installation.

¶10

W.P.(C) 5151/2026

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 20/04/2026 at 15:43:10

¶14

Earlier, the petitioner had filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) 4579/2026 which was disposed of by this Court on 15^th April, 2026 taking note of the submission of the respondents that the writ petition was premature since the requisite permission/ approval for installation of the transformer has not been received from the respondent no.2/ MCD.

¶15

Apparently, on the very same date, i.e. , 15^th April, 2026, permission was granted by the respondent/MCD for installation of the transformer ( Annexure P-4 to the writ petition), which fact was not in the knowledge of counsel appearing for MCD at the time of hearing.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transformer is being installed in a colony park which is a small park and is the only open space available for the residents of the locality. The subject park is used by the residents, including children for various activities.

¶17

4.1 It is submitted that the installation of the transformer would take away substantial part of the subject park.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are alternative sites available in the vicinity, including the BRPL Office and the Metro Station where the transformer can be installed.

¶19

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/ BRPL, submits that the total area required for installation of the transformer would be 6.4 metres X 5.7 metres and the transformer would be installed in one corner of the subject park. He further submits that the transformer is a self-contained structure and would not pose any threat to the residents.

¶20

Ms. Shilpa Ohri, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/ MCD, on instructions submits that the total area of the subject park is 21.4

¶21

W.P.(C) 5151/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 20/04/2026 at 15:43:10

¶25

metres X 15.5 metres. She submits that the permission has been granted by MCD after due consideration.

¶26

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶27

It is an undisputed fact that the transformer is required to augment the electricity supply in the locality and is ultimately for the benefit of the residents therein. It is submitted on behalf of respondent no.1/ BRPL that there have been several complaints with regard to inadequate electricity supply in the locality.

¶28

Insofar as the location of the transformer is concerned, the concerned authorities, i.e., MCD as well as BRPL have identified a place suitable for installation of the transformer.

¶29

This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot question the decision of the respondents in locating the transformer in the subject park. There is no allegation of mala fide in the said decision as the installation of the transformer is towards a public utility.

¶30

Broadly, in terms of the dimensions noted above, the transformer would not take up more than 10 to 15% of the total area of the subject park. 13. Considering that the transformer is for the overall benefit of the residents of the locality, I am not inclined to interfere with the said decision. Similarly, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot get into the question of whether the alternative sites as proposed by the petitioner are more suitable or not. This amounts to holding an inquiry with regard to the suitability, which is not within the domain of the Court.

¶31

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in writ petition and the same is

¶32

W.P.(C) 5151/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 20/04/2026 at 15:43:10

¶36

dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶37

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶38

APRIL 17, 2026 Rzu

¶39

W.P.(C) 5151/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

This is a digitally signed order. 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 20/04/2026 at 15:43:10

Raj Banti & Anr. v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Banti & Anr. v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditi Randhawa Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Jolly Vs Idbi Bank

Bishwabhbhar Nath Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devender Rai Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi New Delhi

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Hari Kishan

Asi/Min Rajendra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manish Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

Sudhir Agarwal Vs Delhi Fire Service and Ors.

Paramount Subhash Nagar Residents Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Vs Hans Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Westend Green Farms Society Vs Government of Delhi NCT & Ors.

Rajesh Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.