BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question which falls for consideration in this case is whether an aggrieved person/plaintiff is liable to pay the court fees on a bill which is prima facie not legal or where the court comes to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the licensee i. e. BSES Rajdhani Power limited is not correct.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner urged that the order of this court, in sarjiwan Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board, 110 (2004) DLT 633 : 2004 (75)DRJ 400 puts the case of the petitioner in an impregnable position. Its relevant para is reproduced as hereunder:-"7. In these circumstances the Order dated 25. 9. 1997 in Suit No. 791/1997 does not disclose any error in the exercise of jurisdiction; CR no. 1186/1997 is accordingly dismissed. Reference Nos. 1/1998, 2/1998, 3/1998, 4/1998, 5/1998 and 6/1998 are disposed of by holding that where a bill has been raised by the Electricity Department, which is prima facie legal, a declaration must be prayed for to the effect that the bill is incorrect or illegal before the Plaintiff can legally pray for an injunction against the recoveries made on the basis of such bills. " emphasis Supplied

(3.) IT must be borne in mind that the stress is on prima facie legal bill. Similar view was taken in a recent case titled as North Delhi Power limited v. Ganesh Aggarwal, CRP No. 72/2006 dated 2nd November, 2006 passed by this court. The Authority of Sarjiwan Singh v. Delhi vidyut Board (supra) was considered and it was held that the only exception carved out in para 7 of the judgment (quoted above) is that the court must be satisfied that the bill is prima facie legal.