Mr. Aakash vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 17, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1261344

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1261344
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Decided On: Apr 17, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/4602/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mr. Aakash

Advocate Ms. Komal Sharma, Mr. Shashank, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vipin Kaushik, Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Mr. Amit Singh

Respondent

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Excerpt

.....on 19th march, 2026 is completely erroneous and proceeds on a speculative basis that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter. she further submits that the laboratory reports relied upon by the respondent/tpddl do not establish the fact that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity connection.3. mr. manish kumar srivastava, appearing on behalf of therespondent/tpddl, on advance notice, submits that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, i.e. whether the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter or not and whether the petitioner has connected load in excess of the sanctioned load, are all disputed question of fact that cannotbe adjudicated in a writ petition. reliance in this regard is placed on the orderdated 1st july, 2024, passed by a coordinate bench of this court in w.p.(c) limited” and other connected matters.4. the relevant extracts from the aforesaid order are set out below:“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 aregranted liberty to approach the civil court or avail any other remedy, available as per law, for ventilation of his/her grievances.” [emphasis supplied.]w.p.(c) 4602/2026 page 2 of 35. in light.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4602/2026 & CM APPL. 22476-22477/2026 MR. AAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Komal Sharma, Mr. Shashank, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Mr. Vipin Kaushik, Advocates

versus

TATA POWER DELHI

DISTRIBUTION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates with Mr. Amit Singh, AGM Legal (TPDDL)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

ORDER

% 17.04.2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the speaking order passed by the

W.P.(C) 4602/2026 Page 1 of 3

respondent, i.e. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) on 19th March, 2026 is completely erroneous and proceeds on a speculative basis that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter. She further submits that the laboratory reports relied upon by the respondent/TPDDL do not establish the fact that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity connection.

3. Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the

respondent/TPDDL, on advance notice, submits that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, i.e. whether the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter or not and whether the petitioner has connected load in excess of the sanctioned load, are all disputed question of fact that cannot

be adjudicated in a writ petition. Reliance in this regard is placed on the order

dated 1st July, 2024, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) Limited” and other connected matters.

4. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order are set out below:

“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.” [Emphasis Supplied.]

W.P.(C) 4602/2026 Page 2 of 3

5. In light of the aforesaid legal position, counsel for the petitioner, on

instruction, seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court. She submits that two (2) weeks’ time be granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn while

granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court within two (2) weeks from today.

7. Mr. Srivastava submits that no coercive action shall be taken by the

respondent/TPDDL against the petitioner in respect of the theft bill for a period of two (2) weeks.

AMIT BANSAL, J

APRIL 17, 2026

ds

W.P.(C) 4602/2026 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Mr. Aakash vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal