Delhi High Court (July 24, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125282 2001-DLT-93-333 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-195 RAJINDER NARAIN AND COMPANY Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and,another MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing CW No. 1401/2000. Vide order dated 7/3/2001 cw No. 1401/2000 was disposed of with the consent of the parties and the matter was referred to NDMC Bijli adalat for reconciliation. NDMC Bijli Adalat disposed of the matter vide its order dated 27/3/2001, wherein the statement of Director (Commercial) was recorded that credit of Rs. 90,152. 00 had already been given to the petitioner, in the billing cycle of October, 2000 and that a proper assessment had been made. Petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition against a total demand of Rs. 2,28,173 as of April, 2001, being raised. Show cause notice was issued vide order dated 20/7/2001. in this writ petition and the order restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply vide meter no. A96117, B31877 and B25090 installed at 14-F, connaught Place, Shivam House, New Delhi-110001 was passed. Restraint order was subject to payment of current demand excluding Rs. 1,12,892. 00. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the petitioner could make the deposit in terms of the above order, electricity has already been disconnected. Petitioner thereupon had moved the present application bearing CM No. 7589/2001 seeking restoration of electricity supply. Mr-Sandeep aggarwal. counsel for the respondent has pointed out that after the disposal of the matter by the Bijli adalat, the amount of Rs,2,28,173. 00 claimed by them is in accordance with the tariff and based on a proper assessment as accepted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner has been subjected to an unwarranted monthly surcharge for non-payment.-As per the petitioner, this surcharge has been incorrectly computed and has also been made on amounts for which the-petitioner has been given credit. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes this submission ( 2 ) THESE are matters, which involve disputed questions of fact and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and as per consent of parties, let the petitioner pay an additional sum of rs. 35,000. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes this submission ( 2 ) THESE are matters, which involve disputed questions of fact and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and as per consent of parties, let the petitioner pay an additional sum of rs. 35,000. 00 to the amount directed in terms of order dated 20/7/2001, within a week from today. Upon payment as aforesaid being made, the electricity supply shall be restored immediately to the petitioner. Petitioner shall also make a representation to the Director (Commercial) setting out its case with regard to the amounts being disputed by him including the amount of surcharge. Director (Commercial) shall consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision after granting a hearing to the petitioner s representative. It would be open for the Director (Commercial) to consider admissibility of the levy of surcharge in the case of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon. It is also made clear that petitioner shall keep on making the payment of current. consumption charges. writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Dasti to counsel for the parties. --- *** --- .