B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE petitioners belongs to unfortunate category who have to have dealing with the DESU and DDA. The petitioner-Society was allotted a and by the Delhi Admn. on 20th December, 1972 and a perpetual lease was executed in its favour by the DDA on 8th May, 1986. The Society in turn executed sub-leases in favour of its members but till today no electric sub-station has been constructed by DESU in the said area and that is the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a space of about 300 sq. mts. was handed over to DESU on 6th December, 1975 and in 1981 a sum of Rs. 4,60,085. 62 paise was deposited with DESU. On 31st March, 1982, an agreement was executed whereby the DESU had taken upon itself the liability for providing electrification of street lights etc. and an additional demand of Rs. 67,810. 00 was also deposited by the Society on 19th January, 1983. ( 3 ) TILL today, the grievance of the petitioners is that no street lighting has been provided and nor has any sub-station been constructed. In May 1983, an agreement was stated to have been entered into between DESU and the contractor but the sub-station was not constructed and, on the other hand, on 1st June, 1990 an additional sum of Rs. 8,02,015. 38 paise has been demanded by DESU for putting up of the sub-station. ( 4 ) IN reply, the DDA has stated that a piece of land was handed over to DESU by the present petitioner-Society on 6th December, 1975. The same site, as per the affidavit of DDA, was again formally handed over to DESU by the Horitculture Department of DDA on 22nd April, 1991. The case of the DDA is that it is no longer concerned with the site in question and the same has been taken over by DESU. ( 5 ) ON behalf of DESU, an affidavit of one J. D. Gupta has been filed. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit, it is stated by, him that electrification could not be carried out because the petitioner-Society had failed to hand over the site for sub-station in the area despite repeated requests. This averment is palpably false. ( 5 ) ON behalf of DESU, an affidavit of one J. D. Gupta has been filed. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit, it is stated by, him that electrification could not be carried out because the petitioner-Society had failed to hand over the site for sub-station in the area despite repeated requests. This averment is palpably false. The documents placed on record clearly show that the site was handed over by the Society to DESU on 6th December, 1975. This is evident from the letter dated 14th March, 1991 of the Executive Engineer of DESU itself written to the Director (Horticulture) of the DDA in which it has been stated that the site has been handed over to DESU on 6th December, 1975. In addition thereto, there is a handing over and taking over report which has been filed by the DDA as Annexure r-2 to its affidavit which shows that physical possession of the plot of land was handed over to Shri Dabir Ahmad, Assistant Engineer (Civil) of DESU on 22nd April, 1991. ( 6 ) IT is further averred in this affidavit of J. D. Gupta that "despite repeated requests the both oral as well as in writing the petitioner- society has failed to hand over the second sub-station site after getting it approved from DDA". The case which is now sought to be developed is that the DESU wanted two sites for erecting two sub-stations. No document evidencing this fact has been placed on record. This averment is, therefore, unsubstantiated. Little reliance can be placed on this affidavit of J. D. Gupta because of the various inaccurate, to say the least, statements made therein. It has been categorically stated in paragraph-11 of the affidavit that "it is denied that DDA had approved the sub-station". Reverting back to the aforesaid letter dated 29th January, 1974 written by the Executive Engineer, DESU to the said architects, it is stated therein as follows |- "in this connection, we have to inform you that a meeting was arranged with Architect Town Planner DDA in his office on 24. 5. 1974 with a view to get his approval to the sub-station sites in the Zonal Development Plan G-17. The sub-station site proposed by this office in your colony, as intimated to you earlier, has now been ap- proved by DDA. 5. 1974 with a view to get his approval to the sub-station sites in the Zonal Development Plan G-17. The sub-station site proposed by this office in your colony, as intimated to you earlier, has now been ap- proved by DDA. As such we can now proceed with the work of framing detailed estimates for the electrification of your colony. " ( 7 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid letter that the DDA had approved the site for the sub-station. ( 8 ) IN this affidavit of J. D. Gupta, it is also stated in paragraph -9 that the land which was handed over to the respondent-DESU was not approved by the DDA for the purpose of erecting sub-station as already indicated. The aforesaid letter dated 29th June, 1974 of DESU itself clearly brings out the falsehood of this averment. It is further stated that in this very paragraph chat there was no approval by the DDA, therefore, DESU had to stop the work of construction of sub-station. No document has been placed on record showing that the DDA had at any point of time written to DESU to stop work. Reference in this paragraph of the affidavit of J. D. Gupta is also made to letters dated 16th June, 1983, 23rd February, 1984 and 4th April, 1985 stated to have been written to the Society bringing to its notice the fact that DDA had objected to setting up of the sub-station. In the affidavit, it is said that photocopies of these letters are attached as Annexure a . In fact, no copy of any of these letters has been annexed. The deponent J. D. Gupta is present in Court and a query raised by us to this effect. He informs us that he has not seen those letters and these letters are not readily traceable. This is indeed unfortunate that a solemn averment has been made in this affidavit without the deponent seeing the records even though in the verification of the affidavit it has been stated that the affidavit is true to his knowledge derived from the records maintained by DESU. It does appear to us that no effort has been taken by the deponent to find out the truth and the averments as made in the counter-affidavit are clearly an attempt to mislead the Court. It does appear to us that no effort has been taken by the deponent to find out the truth and the averments as made in the counter-affidavit are clearly an attempt to mislead the Court. ( 9 ) WE were inclined to take a serious view of the matter and issue a notice to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 340 of Cr. P. C. but J. D. Gupta is present in Court and he has profusely apologised for the mistake. We, therefore, take a lenient view but the action of the respondents under no circumstances can be condoned. It is the responsibility of the deponent and the other persons concerned to see that a false affidavit should not be filed in Court. Not taking action under Section 340 of Cr. P. C. does not mean that the Department itself should not take such appropriate actions, depart- mentally, as may be called for. ( 10 ) IT is evident from the above that the petitioner-Society, who has been running from pillar to post, and its members have been deprived of street lighting as well as permanent connections of electricity due to no fault of theirs. The only thing which has been done by the respondent-DESU is to delay the completion of sub-station and enhance the demand. The petitioner-Society had deposited with DESU by 19th January, 1983, more than 10 years ago, a sum of Rs. 5,27,895. 62 paise, even if one was to calculate at a conservative rate of this money, the same would have doubled by now. The impugned demand of 1st June, 1990, the total revised liability of the petitioner-Society is stated to be to the tune of Rs. 11,89,091. 00. DESU, which is supposed to be a commercial organisation, has had the use, of this money without discharging its obligations and taking into consideration the interest which the respondents must have earned on the amount of Rs. 4,60,085. 62 paise deposited in 1981 and a further sum of Rs. 67,810. 00 (thereby making a total of Rs. 5,27,895. 62 paise) on 19th January, 1983 there is no justification for raising any fresh or additional demand from the petitioners to make up the figure of Rs. 11,89,091. 00. 4,60,085. 62 paise deposited in 1981 and a further sum of Rs. 67,810. 00 (thereby making a total of Rs. 5,27,895. 62 paise) on 19th January, 1983 there is no justification for raising any fresh or additional demand from the petitioners to make up the figure of Rs. 11,89,091. 00. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing DESU to erect sub- station at no further cost to the petitioner-Society or it s members at the site handed over to it, within a period of six months from today. The petitioner-Society and its members will also not be liable to pay electricity charges at the rates applicable for temporary connections. They shall pay only at the rates meant for permanent connection. 11. Petitioners will also be entitled to cost. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000. 00