( 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.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has also placed reliance on two other authorities reported in M/s. Maharaji Educational Trust and another v. Punjab and Sind Bank and another, AIR 2006 Delhi 226 : 2006 (87)DRJ 410 and Assam State Electricity Board Guwahati and others v. Borjalinga Tea Company and another, AIR 1997 Guwahati 119.

( 5 ) ADUMBRATED in brief the facts of this case are these. The petitioner, bses Rajdhani Power Limited inspected the premises of the respondent plaintiff on 24. 08. 2006 and issued a bill in the sum of Rs. 29,25,989/ -. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit before the Trial Court for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction wherein it was prayed that the defendant /petitioner be directed to restore the electricity supply of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/petitioner be restrained from enforcing the above said order / bill. Para 32 of the plaint goes to reveal that value of the suit for the purposes of the court fees and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 260/- on which a prescribed court fees of Rs. 26/- had been pasted on the plaint.

( 6 ) THE petitioner / defendant objected that in view of the order passed by this court in Sarjeevan Singh v. DVB, 110 (2004) DLT 633 : 2004 (75)DRJ 400, the court fees was not properly fixed. The jurisdiction of the court was also called into question.

( 7 ) THE trial court granted the interim relief in favour of the plaintiff subject to the condition that it would deposit a sum of Rs. 8. 5 lacs towards the bill in question. The petitioner has called into question the order passed by the trial court.

( 8 ) THE trial court came to the conclusion that the impugned bill had been raised in contravention of Regulation 30 (1) of DERC (Performance -Standards Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002. I am unable to find out any fault with this finding. The said Regulation runs as follows:-

"30. General (i) While making the assessment bill, the licensee shall give credit to the consumer for the payments already made by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill. The assessed bill shall be prepared after excluding the consumption recorded by the meter. The bill shall clearly indicate the timing, days and place where it is to be deposited. "

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Under Regulation 30 (1) the consumer is only entitled to the be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document