Dismissed¶31

Javed Hasan Khan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Delhi HC14 May 2026W.P.(C)/6567/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC (Amit Bansal J, 14.05.2026) W.P.(C) 6567/2026 — petition seeking shifting of BSES electricity transformer at Saheen Bagh dismissed; Article 226 jurisdiction cannot question location of public utility transformer; alternative-site suitability outside judicial domain; removal proceedings pending before DM under Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 / Electricity Act, 2003; relies on Raj Banti & Anr. v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd (W.P.(C) 5151/2026); refers to Manoj Malik v. DDA (W.P.(C) 5579/2026).

What did the court decide?

It is for the concerned authorities to identify an appropriate location for the installation of an electricity transformer, which is in the nature of a public utility. ¶24

Javed Hasan Khan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent no.3/BSES to shift the electricity transformer at Jaggan Patti, Plot No.5, Khasra No. 375, Block F/B Saheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave 2, New Delhi 110025 to the adjacent BSES site at Allama Shibli Nomani Road. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

In any event, proceedings for removal of the said transformer filed before the concerned authority are pending, which weighs against judicial interference with the transformer's location.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

It is for the concerned authorities to identify an appropriate location for the installation of an electricity transformer, which is in the nature of a public utility.

¶24

Key takeaways

This Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, question the decision of the respondents with respect to the location of the transformer.ratio¶29
In light of the discussion above, the Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of this petition, and the petition was dismissed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed. The petitioner sought a direction to respondent no.3/BSES to shift an electricity transformer at Jaggan Patti, Saheen Bagh, to an adjacent BSES site, pointing to congestion and instances of fire at the existing transformer. Amit Bansal, J., relying on the Court's recent order in Raj Banti & Anr. v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. (W.P.(C) 5151/2026) and noting similar observations in Manoj Malik v. DDA (W.P.(C) 5579/2026, order dated 24.04.2026), held that siting of a public-utility installation such as an electricity transformer is a matter for the concerned authorities, and that the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot question the respondents' decision on the transformer's location. The relied-upon observations further state that choosing between alternative proposed sites amounts to an inquiry into suitability outside the Court's domain. The Court additionally noted that proceedings for removal of the transformer were already pending before the concerned District Magistrate under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

¶1

$~55

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6567/2026

¶4

JAVED HASAN KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shiv Shankar Parashar, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocates for R-3

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 14.05.2026

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.3/BSES to shift the transformer at Jaggan Patti, Plot No.5, Khasra No. 375, Block F/B Saheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave 2, New Delhi 110025 to the adjacent site of BSES at Allama Shibli Nomani Road.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the subject transformer is in a very congested locality and there have been instances of fire in the subject transformer. It is further submitted that there is an alternate area available with the respondent no.3/BSES where the subject transformer can be shifted.

¶10

Mr. Aditya Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3/BSES, submits that the subject transformer is located inside a private plot and is not in the middle of the road. He further submits that proceedings have already been filed before the concerned District Magistrate under the Works of

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

W.P.(C) 6567/2026

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 18/05/2026 at 12:29:33

¶15

Licensees Rules, 2006, framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, for removal of the subject transformer, which are pending.

¶16

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶17

This Court has recently held in W.P. (C) 5151/2026, titled ‘ Raj Banti & Anr. v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.’ that insofar as public utility services are concerned, this Court cannot get into issues with regard to location of the same. The relevant observations from the said judgement are set out below: -

¶18

“9. 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.

¶19

10. 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.

¶20

11. 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.

¶21

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.”

¶22

Similar observations were also made in order dated 24^th April, 2026 in

¶23

W.P. (C) 5579/2026, titled ‘ Manoj Malik v . DDA ’.

¶24

The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable in the present case. It is for the concerned authorities to identify an appropriate location for the installation of an electricity transformer, which is in the nature of a public utility. This Court, cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226,

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

W.P.(C) 6567/2026

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 18/05/2026 at 12:29:33

¶29

question the decision of the respondents with respect to location of the transformer. In any event, proceedings have been filed before the concerned authority for removal of the said transformer, which are pending.

¶30

In light of the discussion above, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the petition.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MAY 14, 2026 ds

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 6567/2026

¶36

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 18/05/2026 at 12:29:33

Javed Hasan Khan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Hasan Khan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sgivs Global Llc Vs Union of India & Ors.

Naseer Ahmad Vs Commissioner of Customs

Sandhouse Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Aakash Goel Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ankur Bansal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rajiv Dewan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mrs Ritu Khanna Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Krishan Kant Sagar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sandhouse Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Madan Lal Malhotra Vs MCD

Rajbinder Kaur Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Arjun Kapur Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Santosh Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Commissioner & Ors.

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commssioner & Ors.