BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD v. ABDUL RASHID ANSARI & ANR.
LPA/299/2024 · 2025-12-12
Dinesh Mehta, Vimal Kumar Yadav
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 56835 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 56835 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~7 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 297/2024, CM APPL. 21973/2024 & CM APPL. 21976/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
GULSHAN KUMAR GAMBHIR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. 8 + LPA 298/2024, CM APPL. 21982/2024 & CM APPL. 21985/2024
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam V., Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. versus
INDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 9 + LPA 299/2024, CM APPL. 21987/2024 & CM APPL. 21990/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
ABDUL RASHID ANSARI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 10 + LPA 300/2024, CM APPL. 21991/2024 & CM APPL. 21994/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anupam Varma, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:40
versus
DES RAJ MADAN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 11 + LPA 301/2024, CM APPL. 21995/2024 & CM APPL. 21998/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
RAVINDER SETH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 12 + LPA 302/2024, CM APPL. 21999/2024 & CM APPL. 22002/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
KUMUD CHANDRA DEKA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 13 + LPA 303/2024, CM APPL. 22003/2024 & CM APPL. 22006/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
HARI PRAKASH CHHIKARA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 14 + LPA 304/2024, CM APPL. 22010/2024 & CM APPL. 22013/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:40
versus
NARENDER KUMAR MARWAH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 15 + LPA 305/2024, CM APPL. 22015/2024 & CM APPL. 22019/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
PRAMODH SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. 16 + LPA 306/2024, CM APPL. 22021/2024 & CM APPL. 22024/2024
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. S. Akshata, Advs.
versus
SUNIL JOHRY & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
O R D E R %
12.12.2025
1.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, while deciding the writ petitions, although the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions filed by the Respondents-writ petitioners on merit but decided the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions against the Appellants, holding them to be a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:40
2. He further submitted that since the issue on merit was covered in favour of the Appellant companies, they did not raise the issue or objection that they were not amenable to writ jurisdiction, before the learned Single Judge.
3. All the counsel for the Appellant companies submitted that though neither raised nor argued, learned Single Judge has framed the issue of maintainability of writ petition and held the same against them without noticing the fact that the issue of maintainability of writ petition has already been set at rest by the High Court.
4. On perusal of the pleadings and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against the Electricity Distribution Companies, was not required to be decided, as jointly submitted.
5. Be that as it may. We set aside the part of the judgment, particularly Para No. 69 and all corresponding parts of the impugned judgment qua issue no. 1, however, while observing that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition against electricity distribution companies shall remain open, if the same arises in any other writ petition and the parties shall be free to make their submissions in this regard.
6. Captioned appeals and all interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J DECEMBER 12, 2025/hk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2025 at 12:45:40