Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 805 (DEL)

SARDAR EXHIBITORS P. LTD v. N. D. M. C.

2004-09-23

B.A.KHAN, MANJU GOEL

body2004
KHAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS claimed that they had purchased properties No. 72-75 along with two garages forming part of building formerly known as Scindia House vide Sale Deed dated 16. 9. 1987 and had applied for sanction of electricity connection of 13. 6 kw (Power) and 6. 3 kw (light) load. By letter dated 26. 9. 1990, respondents had asked them to complete formalities which they had done. But in spite of that no sanction for electricity was granted by them though it is settled that electricity is an essential supply and respondents are under an obligation to supply it. They had even filed a suit for this in which respondents, for the first time, took a stand in their written statement that the request for sanction was not received along with the documents of house tax in the name of owner which was not a requirement to be satisfied. These respondents also raised a vague plea for the first time that there was an unauthorised construction being carried out in the premises. ( 2 ) IT is accordingly prayed by petitioners that writ of mandamus be issued to these respondents asking them to sanction electricity connection in the premises at 74- 75 (Atmaram Mansion/scindia House ). ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS in their counter have challenged maintainability of this petition on the ground that petitioners had filed a suit on the subject matter which they had withdrawn on 15. 9. 1992 and that they had failed to get any relief in that suit and that there were three suits filed by them (Suit No. 44, 45 and 46/1990) relating to the unauthorised construction in the premises in which they had obtained an order against demolition of unauthorised construction. On this basis it is submitted by respondents that they were not entitled to electricity supply connection because of the unauthorised construction in the premises which was detected by their committee and pursuant whereto their properties were sealed and desealed. It is also pointed out them that these petitioners had tempered with the seal for which an FIR was lodged against them. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS have filed a rejoinder also reiterating that they were the owners of the properties and disputing that there was any unauthorised construction of property in premises No. 72-75. It is also pointed out them that these petitioners had tempered with the seal for which an FIR was lodged against them. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS have filed a rejoinder also reiterating that they were the owners of the properties and disputing that there was any unauthorised construction of property in premises No. 72-75. ( 5 ) THE record shows that an interim order was passed by this Court on 12. 4. 1994 noticing the main contentions of parties and also the judgment of this Court in Rear admiral R. R. Sood Vs. D. E. S. U. (1992) 46 d. L. T. 125 holding that so long as there was in operation an interim order of a competent court protecting a property, it can t be considered an unauthorised building . It was in consideration of this that respondents were directed to supply electricity to these premises no. 74-75 subject to the terms and conditions upon an application being made by them for the purpose and upon their completing the requisite formalities. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to this order petitioners had already enjoyed the electricity connection supply ever since but subsequently they had raised some more disputes about excess billing, etc. which is not the subject matter of this petition. Their counsel, however, submits that there was some Full Bench judgment by this Court ruling that electricity supply was to be sanctioned to properties involving unauthorised construction also. No such judgment has been provided before us but going by the relief prayed for by petitioners in their writ petition, it stands as good as granted by interim order dated 12. 4. 1994 and we feel that this petition can be disposed of in terms of this order with some modifications here and there. ( 7 ) THE main dispute between the parties is whether electricity connection could be sanctioned to the alleged unauthorised construction in the petitioners premises no. 74-75. If their entitlement was supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court, the respondents would be duty bound to grant them the requisite sanction and regularise it. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances this petition can be safely disposed of by the following order:- 1. 74-75. If their entitlement was supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court, the respondents would be duty bound to grant them the requisite sanction and regularise it. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances this petition can be safely disposed of by the following order:- 1. Respondents shall reconsider petitioners case for sanctioning of electricity connection in accordance with the prevalent rules and taking in regard the Full Bench judgment of this court on the issue of entitlement of electricity supply to unauthorised construction and on petitioners satisfying all other requirements under rules and pass appropriate orders in the matter within two months from receipt of this order. 2. Should petitioners have any grievance about any excess billing or wrong charging for electricity consumed by them under the interim court order, they shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy in this regard if the dispute was not resolved mutually. 3. THE electricity connection given to petitioners under interim court order dated 12. 4. 1994 shall continue till fresh appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority of respondents.