Ms. Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) M/s. Bhanot Properties and Industries Ltd. , a Company incorporated under the Companies Act gave the highest bid in the auction held on 16th January, 1986 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi thereinafter called the MCD) for plots No. 1 and 2, Local Shopping Centre, Pomposh Enclave, New Delhi. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the DDA) respondent No. 3 herein represented that the shops for auction/sale were fully developed for construction of shops and offices. The ground floor space was to be utilised for retail shops, first floor and upper floor for office and commercial purposes. Since the petitioner was the highest bidder his bid was accepted and the perpetual lease deed was accepted conferring all the rights on the petitioner regarding the said commercial plots vide the registered lease deed dated 3rd October, 1988. The possession of the plots was handed over after the acceptance of the bid. The plan was sanctioned with respect to plot No. I on 4th of September, 1986 and for plot No. 2 on 4th September, 1988. Pursuance to the sanctioned plan, - petitioner constructed the building on the said two plots. It was ready for occupation somewhere in November 1st, 1988 and the DDA after inspection issued occupancy certificate on 2nd November, 1988, After compliance with the above formalities, the petitioner sold the constructed shops and/or flats to various buyers. It was represented at that time that the flats and the shops were fully equipped with electric connection and/or the entire building will be fully electrified. Petitioner applied for permanent electric connection with 75 KW non-domestic load for each building. The said request was made on 27th December, 1988. Subsequently, reminders were issued but the building has not been electrified. ( 2 ) FOR non-sanctioning of the permanent connection there appears to besome dispute between the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter called the DESU) MCD and the DDA. DESU needs a space for constructing a local Sub Station which space is not bring provided. DDA on the other hand had been insisting that a Pole mounted transformer system be provided to electrify the complex. When approached by the petitioner for electricity, the DDA expreseed its inability to help the petitioner. DESU admitted that the petitioner is entitled to non-domestic electric connection. DDA on the other hand had been insisting that a Pole mounted transformer system be provided to electrify the complex. When approached by the petitioner for electricity, the DDA expreseed its inability to help the petitioner. DESU admitted that the petitioner is entitled to non-domestic electric connection. It however expressed its helplessness to electrify the building because according to DESU, Scheme for electrification of building on petitioner s plots was under consideration with its Planning Department. Unless that scheme was approved, building could not be electrified. This was so communicated by DESU to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st January, 1990. Reminders were sent by petitioner to these authorities for electrification but without fruitful results. DDA in the meantime vide letter dated 9th January, 1990 instructed DESU that till local Sub-Station is provided at the site, petitioner may be. provided a temporary connection in order to avoid inconvenience. But this request of DDA also did not bring any result. Petitioner has also alleged diserimination. According to petitioner, DESU has provided electricity and power connections of commercial load to other commercial buildings situated nearby the building of the petitioner. The Sub-Station with all transformer is situated hardly 30 yards away from the building of the petitioner. Neither the petitioner was granted permanent connection nor the temporary. ( 3 ) DESU when confronted with this position took up the stand that the matter regarding general electrification at convenient shopping complex including Pomposh Enclave was sent to its Planning Department for consideration. The scheme has not been formulated for want of handing over of Sub-Station by the DDA and till this scheme is finalised, electrification is not possible. ( 4 ) DDA admitted auctioning of this commercial building.-Before starting developing the land, DDA sent a copy of lay out plan to DESU to prepare the estimate for electrification of the space including street lightening. On this request of the DDA, DESU had not taken any auction till the filing of the writ petition, nor the DESU made a demand on the DDA to pay its share for electrification. According to DDA, in response to its letter asking to prepare estimate cost for the electrification, a letter was received on 3rd May, 1990 from DESU i. e. after about three years staling that total estimate cost for electrification scheme works out to Rs. 11,28,765. 00. DDA was to pay 50% of the same. According to DDA, in response to its letter asking to prepare estimate cost for the electrification, a letter was received on 3rd May, 1990 from DESU i. e. after about three years staling that total estimate cost for electrification scheme works out to Rs. 11,28,765. 00. DDA was to pay 50% of the same. It has paid its share amounting to Rs. 5,98,400. 00. This was paid on 15th December, 1990. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the DDA. ( 5 ) SO far as Municipal Corporation of Deihi is concerned, in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to it to file the counter and explain its stand, the MCD like a spoiled and stub born child did not care to explain its stand. To us it appeared as if we were begging for a favour from MCD when we asked the said authority to file its counter and explain its stand. So-much-so, we bad to call the Standing Counsel as well as the Additional Standing Counsel personally, to at least explained what was the stand of the MCD. But to our surprise even these officials were of no help. They took our direction in their stride and did not care to bring the facts on record. The matter does not end here, we are pained to mention these facts to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide. our order dated November 5, 1990 but even he did not show any respect to the Court by explaining the stand of the MCD. If this can be the attitude of the MCD towards the Court, we can well Imagine what could be that attitude of such a local body towards the public at large. Had the Commissioner MCD been little deligent, people like petitioner would not have been forced to knock the door of the Court. It is because of this attitude on the part of the official of the MCD that people are dragged and forced to come to the Court. This we are expressing with a great anguish and keeping into consideration that MCD is an public dealing body playing important role so far as people of Delhi are concerned. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact on the record that petitioner bought the land from an Authority which had the power to dispose of the same in public auction. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact on the record that petitioner bought the land from an Authority which had the power to dispose of the same in public auction. He constructed the commercial building in accordance with the approved and sanctioned plan. He sold the fiats and commercial shops after the occu- pancy certificate was issued. Petitioner applied for the commercial electric connection of the building. But because of the inter see disputes between the DESU, DDA and the MCD petitioner has been made to suffer from 1988 till Interim relief was granted by this Court in February, 1990. ( 7 ) THERE is a statutory obligation cast on the DESU to supply electricity within its area to every person. The consumer is entitled to have the electric connection on payment of charges so fixed by the DESU. In this regard reference can be had to Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called the ACT) which reads as under :- "22. Obligation on licensee to supply Energy :- Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply, except as in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licensee, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled to similar circumstances to a corresponding supply. Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand or to continue to receive from a licensee a supply of energy for any premises having a separate supply unless he has argued with the licensee to pay to him such minimum annual sum as will give him a reasonable return on the capital expenditure and will cover other standing charges incurred by him in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises, the sum payable to be determined in case of difference or dispute by arbitration. " ( 8 ) THERE is a power with the DESU to disconnect the electric supply to a consumer on his neglecting to pay the electric charges. This is so provided under Section 24 of the Act. Since the petitioner at no stage failed to pay the electric charges, therefore, there was no question of discontinuance or non-supply of electricity to the building of the petitioner. This is so provided under Section 24 of the Act. Since the petitioner at no stage failed to pay the electric charges, therefore, there was no question of discontinuance or non-supply of electricity to the building of the petitioner. There is a Notification dated 23rd November, 1959 issued by the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi keeping in view that there should be a supply and equal distribution of electric energy. The said notification promulgated a Control Order known as "delhi Electricity Control Order 1959". This was promulgated under the power conferred by Section 22b of the Act read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 10th November, 1959. Clause 4c of the said Control Order provides for prohibition of the instalation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants. Neither petitioner nor the buyers are the unauthorised occupants of the plots and commercial shops in the building in question. ( 9 ) IT was in fact the responsibility of the DESU to have formulated the scheme as soon as the DDA submitted the lay out plan before developing the area. There is no justification or explanation given by the DESU why the scheme was not accepted by its Planning Department. Should a common citizen suffer because of the bureaucratic approach of the DESU. The non-electrification and delay in electrifying a building can because of inter sc dispute between these authorities cannot be appreciated. Nor the stand of DESU that the matter was under consideration of its Planning Department eversince December, 1987 can be appreciated. Can be State disown its responsibility by blaming one of its Department ? Common man deal with the authority as such and not with an individual wing or department of that authority. It was for the DESU to see that the estimate is prepared well in advanced for electrification of the building in question and sent to the DDA for making the said Organisation pay its share. As per DESU s own showing the DDA submitted the lay out plan some where in 1987 and the DESU sent the same for consideration to its Planning Department way back in December, 1987. It was only after the writ was filed that the DESU woke up and sent the estimate to DDA in May, 1990. The said letter issued by DESU dated 3rd May, 1990 has been filed by DDA as Annexure (R3/2 ). It was only after the writ was filed that the DESU woke up and sent the estimate to DDA in May, 1990. The said letter issued by DESU dated 3rd May, 1990 has been filed by DDA as Annexure (R3/2 ). It is apparent from the same that this estimate was prepared way back on 6th December, 1989. What prevented the DESU in forwarding this letter to the DDA in December, 1989 itself, no explanation is forthcoming. Is it not a mockery of the system that what right band is doing, left hand does not know ? But fact remains it was at the cost of the public. DDA vide its letter dated 15th December, 1990 (Ex. R3/3) has deposited its share but the Corporation has not, therefore, the DESU has still not electrified the building in question. Beside these glaring aspects of negligence on the part of these organisation, the petitioner has also produced on record the act of discrimination against him by the DESU. In the vicinity of this very complex DESU had supplied the electricity to two of the other commercial complex called "guru Nanag Market" which is fully electrified with non-domestic load of 100 KW approximately. Next to the said building there is a Nursing Home which is also fully electrified with domestic load of 120 KW approximately. At the back of the petitioner s building there is yet another multi-storied building known as "k and Company" with non-domestic load of approbimately 150 KWS. What is justification to electrify these buildings in the same vicinity and refuse to electrify petitioner s building ? If there was a dispute of Sub-Station and formulation of scheme then it ought to have applied to those building also. All these objections have been taken only regarding the building of the petitioner for reason best known to DESU. It is not for the first time that these facts have been brought out by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 5th February, 1990 (Annexure P5) addressed to DESU, the petitioner pointed out discrimination and mentioned that electrification of these buildings, Copy of this was endorsed to the Chairman. No explanation was called by the Chairman or General Manager nor looked into the complaint of the petitioner. Said letter of petitioner, to our mind, must have formed part of waste paper basket. No explanation was called by the Chairman or General Manager nor looked into the complaint of the petitioner. Said letter of petitioner, to our mind, must have formed part of waste paper basket. ( 10 ) SINCE no cogent reasons have been assigned for non-supply of the electricity to a commercial building which came into existence on account of the sanctioned plan, and further we find discrimination towards the petitioner. Hence for the reasons dismissed above we see no reason not to accept this writ petition. We accordingly allow. the writ petition and rule already issued is here by made absolute with direction that the DESU and the MCD shall electrify these buildings constructed on plots No. 1 and 2 within four weeks. Even if they have any differences inter se the Departments, it will not effect the electrification of these buildings. It is further directed that the excess charges charged from the petitioner on account of temporary connection shall be refunded/adjusted in the running bills because we are treating that connection load given on temporary basis as permanent. DESU ought to have charges for the previous years also on permanent basis. The DESU and MCD shall also pay to the petitioner for the expenses incurred in laying down the cables because vide order dated 27th March, 1990 it was made clear that amount spent by the petitioner for laying the cables, switches and also cost of laying the cables will be worked out and amount spent by petitioner shall be paid by the respondent, if petitioner succeed. That amount petitioner will work out and submit to the DESU who will pay the same to the petitioner. We allow the petitioner the cost of Rs. 3,000. 00 to be borne in equal portion by all the three respondents and a special cost on the MCD to the tune of Rs. 3,000. 00 to be paid to the Counsel for the petitioner.