KAMLESH GAUR Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that the complainant after obtaining guide lines from the respondent installed a 40 KVA generator set and now she is not being allowed to operate it by them. The respondent in such circumstances could not disallow them to do so. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length. The question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to install a 40 KVA generator set in her premises. The respondent vide resolution No.68 dated 17th April, 1989 took a decision, "permission for the capacity of DG set to be granted may be 20% over and above, the sanctioned load of the registered consumer". The resolution is binding on all the persons who want to install generator set within the municipal area. Admittedly the generator of 40 KVA which is sought to be installed is more than 20% over and above the sanctioned load of the complainant. There is no reliable evidence on the record to show, that the complainant took prior permission of the respondent to install the 40 KVA generator set. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to install a generator of 40 KVA.

(2.) Faced with this situation the learned Counsel for the complainant sought to urge that while pruchasing the generator it was not brought to their notice by the employees of the respondent that she was not entitled to 40 KVA generator and, therefore they cannot now say that she was not entitled to install the same. We regret our inability to accept the contention. It has already been observed that there is no reliable evidence that the complainant took permission to install 40 KVA generator before purchasing it. Moreover under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the M. C. D. is entitled to make subordinate legislation and a citizen cannot be allowed to say that he did not know such a legislation. It was the duty of the complainant to find out the said resolution and purchase the generator set of the capacity as resolved therein. Consequently we reject the submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant.

(3.) The second submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that the respondents are not giving effect to her request to change the name of the licensee in the records of the respondent, inspite of various requests having been made by her. The respondent's Counsel has argued that the conditions of supply of electricity do not authorized the complainant to get the name of the licensee changed. We have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure 'c which is Form 'b' (Industrial) issued by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. This application Form is for making an application to DESU inter-alia for the purpose of changing the name of the licensee. The complainant has also produced a Brochure tided as 'your Guide To Working Towards A Better Delhi' which provides that subject to confirmation of title of legal occupancy there is no restriction of change of name of the licensee or of change of constitution. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the name of the licensee of the electricity changed after paying the normal dues and completing the formalities.