Delhi High Court – Orders
Yogender Sagar vs Bses Ypl & Anr on 7 January, 2025
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 23/2025
YOGENDER SAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
BSES YPL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 07.01.2025
CM APPL. 59/2025
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 23/2025
3. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner
challenging the alleged excess bill for Rs.13,56,198/- issued by BSES
YPL/Respondents in respect of Enforcement of CAW No. 401660111 dated
20.09.2024. Petitioner also claims compensation and litigation expenses as
well as a direction to the Respondents to reconnect the electricity connection
which was disconnected on 15.11.2024.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents on advance
copy of the writ petition, on instructions, submits that the electricity of the
premises in question bearing No. D-116, Gali No. 5, Kamal Vihar, Delhi-
110094 has been disconnected as there are outstanding dues payable by the
Petitioner in the sum of Rs.13,56,198/- and as the bill reflects Petitioner has
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:45
indulged in meter tampering leading to fraudulent and dishonest abstraction
of energy. Learned counsel raises an objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition on the ground that only the Special Court constituted under
Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘2003 Act’) is vested with the
power under Section 154 of the 2003 Act to try offences punishable under
Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the said Act and to support this plea,
relies on an order of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. BSES Rajdhani Power
Limited, W.P. (C) 6026/2007, decided on 09.09.2016 as also orders in
Kishan Singh Shokeen v. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd., W.P. (C)
9215/2007, decided on 01.07.2024 and Muhimuddin Muhi v. BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd., W.P. (C) 4387/2023, decided on 11.12.2024.
5. Petitioner who appears in person, disputes the allegations of theft and
dishonest abstraction of energy. He submits that it was the agent of
Respondent No. 2 who had on 16.04.2024 noticed that there was some
technical fault in the electricity meter of the Petitioner and had broken the
seal to examine the meter, on an assurance that a new seal will be placed
soon. However, the needful was not done for a long time and instead a show
cause notice was issued on 27.08.2024, levelling false allegations of
dishonest abstraction of energy. Petitioner attended the personal hearing on
02.09.2024 and also gave a written reply dated 04.09.2024 pointing out that
the seal was broken by the team of BSES YPL and he had not tampered with
the meter. Without paying heed to the issues raised by the Petitioner, the
impugned bill was generated seeking an exorbitant amount of
Rs.13,56,198/- and electricity was disconnected and thus, the impugned
demand be quashed and electricity of the premises in question be restored.
On the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition,
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:45
Petitioner does not have much to argue.
6. Heard the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.
7. There is merit in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the
Respondents. There can be no dispute that jurisdiction conferred on
Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an
inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the High Courts
have wide powers. It is, however, equally settled that the High Court should
not exercise the extraordinary power in writ proceedings where disputed
questions of fact are involved and in this context, I may allude to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and
Others, (2021) 20 SCC 454. In my view, a greater restraint is required when
jurisdiction is conferred by Statutes on Special Courts.
8. As per the Respondents, Petitioner has allegedly tampered with the
meter and indulged in fraudulent and dishonest abstraction of energy, an
allegation seriously refuted by the Petitioner, who in turn blames the
Respondents for having broken the seal for examination of the allegedly
faulty meter. In a nutshell, the matter relates to alleged dishonest
abstraction/theft of electricity by the Petitioner. In Ashok Kumar (supra),
this Court held that in light of Sections 153 and 154(5) of 2003 Act,
Petitioner had an alternate remedy to challenge the impugned bills before the
Special Court and relevant passages from the order are as follows:-
“A perusal of the file reveals that it is the case of the respondent that the
petitioner has indulged in fraudulent and dishonest abstraction of energy.
A Division Bench of this Court in B.L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power
Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB) has held that the Special Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes pertaining to dishonest
abstraction of energy. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-
“22. It is apparent that the cases of theft under Section 135(1) involve
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:46
mens rea. The jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred but the power to
try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 139 is conferred
exclusively on the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the
Act and the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 154 specifically
invest Special Court with the jurisdiction to determine any dispute
regarding the quantum of civil liability in theft cases whether or not
the allegation of theft is disputed, is still entitled to make such a
challenge to the disputed bill before the Special Court, even in cases
where no criminal complaint is filed against the consumer and the
amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were
a decree of a civil Court and it can act as civil Court as well as
criminal Court while conducting the cases before it.
xxx xxx xxx
30. Although there is no specific provision in Section 145 of the Act
for exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any proceeding
in respect of any matter which the Special Court is empowered by or
under the Act to determine, we are of the view that any dispute about
civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction
of civil Court in view of the provisions of Sections 153 and 154 of the
Act wherein special court has got the jurisdiction to determine any
dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability specifically in theft
cases and the said Court can act as civil Court as well as criminal
Court while conducting the cases before it.”
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an alternative
effective remedy to challenge the impugned speaking order and the
impugned bills.”
9. In this context, I may also allude to the observations of this Court in
Kishan Singh Shokeen (supra), which are as follows:-
“7. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v.
Rajeshwari Shivam, 1 is of also pertinent importance, wherein, the Court
has held that the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution, should not adjudicate on the disputed
questions of facts. The Court held as under:
“26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does
not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High
Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical
reports and decide which one is acceptable.”
8. Considering the case in hand, the dispute involves certain questions of
facts like whether the meter itself was tempered and as to who was
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:46
responsible for the same. These issues are highly contentious. Therefore,
on the conspectus of the settled legal position as enunciated above, it is
amply clear that since, the petitions at hand, involve various disputed
questions of facts which would require a shred of evidence to be laid by
the concerned party and a meticulous examination of such evidence before
deciding such dispute. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to adjudicate
such disputes in writ jurisdiction.
9. At this juncture, it is imperative to place reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 6883/2017 titled as North Delhi Power
Limited v. Devinder Singh & Anr., wherein, the Court discussed the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the context of the Electricity Act, 2003
and held that for disputes of such nature can be adjudicated by the Civil
Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as
under:- ” It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid sections that the
Special Electricity Court acts as a Court of Sessions and has been set up to
try offences that are committed under the Act. By no stretch of imagination
can it be stated that a civil suit would be within the jurisdiction of such
Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment deserves
to be set aside.
10. This Court is not oblivious to the settled position of law that the
presence of an alternate efficacious remedy by itself does not oust the
jurisdiction of a writ court. However, such a position is also not absolute
rather than subject to certain exceptions as enunciated by the Supreme
Court in the decision of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,
wherein, the Court observed as under:-
“27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs
can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights,
but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court
is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved
person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the
writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental
right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of
its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate
case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained whenW.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:46
an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the
remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be
had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule
of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience
and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High
Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However,
if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view
would not readily be interfered with.
28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in
Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad [Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad, (2003)
5 SCC 399] , Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot
[Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC
706] and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India [Rajasthan SEB v. Union
of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632] among other decisions.”
11. However, the present is not the case where any of the exigencies as
mentioned in the aforementioned paragraphs are met. More importantly,
this is not the case wherein, any fundamental right of the petitioner was
violated. Moreover, the petitioner has all the rights to approach the Civil
Court. Having considered the nature of the grievance raised in the writ
petition, it is found that the alleged violations of Rules and Regulations, if
any can also be gone into by the concerned Court. Essentially the issue
whether the petitioner was involved in the alleged theft of electricity or not
perhaps may not be amenable to adjudication by this court in exercise of
the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Therefore, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the
petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Civil Court or avail any
other remedy, available as per law, for ventilation of his/her grievances.”
10. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also rightly placed reliance
on the decision in Muhimuddin Muhi (supra), where Petitioner was
permitted to withdraw the writ petition to approach the appropriate forum in
light of judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), as the dispute pertained to
dishonest abstraction of electricity.
11. In view of the plethora of judicial precedent that Special Court
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:46
constituted under Section 153 of the 2003 Act has the exclusive jurisdiction
to try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the
2003 Act as also for determining the quantum of civil liability, this writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy
before the Special Court, if so advised. Needless to state, if the Petitioner
approaches the Special Court, every endeavour shall be made to dispose of
the matter expeditiously, since the electricity of the Petitioner stands
disconnected.
12. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties to the lis
are left open and the Special Court shall decide the matter on its own merit
as this Court has neither entered into nor expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 07, 2025/shivam
W.P.(C) 23/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 07/01/2025 at 21:27:46