Order W.P. (C) 2068/2013 and CM 3934/2013 (interim injunction) 1. This pro bono publico petition seeks for the following directions: (1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ thereby directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately restore power supply to around 45000 streetlight at 6 locations in North/Northwest Delhi in view of larger public interest served by streetlights. (2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to frame appropriate policy/guideline with regard to providing/distributing/maintaining public services which includes streetlights without fail? The electricity to the streetlights at six locations in North and North West Delhi is being supplied by the second respondent Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., a private agency. According to the second respondent, a sum of Rs. 60.29 crores is due to it from the first respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation and for that reason, the electricity supplied to 45000 streetlights in the said six locations was disconnected on or from 25th March, 2013. The first respondent being the State is responsible for the supply of electricity to the streetlights has failed to pay the said amount and for that reason the second respondent was forced to disconnect power supply to the above street lights. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first respondent as well as the second respondent It appears that there is some dispute with regard to the payment to be made by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation to the second respondent Company towards power supply to the street lights. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation has submitted that the said dispute has already been taken to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and the same is pending. Though the electricity is supplied to the street lights on behalf of the first respondent who has got the responsibility to provide electricity to the street lights for the benefit of the public, we are not expressing any opinion as to whether the second respondent would be entitled to disconnect the power supply to the street light for non-payment of the dues, in this writ petition, for the simple reason, as has been submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel, that the electricity has been restored and as on today the prayer (a) has been already addressed. 3. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel, that the electricity has been restored and as on today the prayer (a) has been already addressed. 3. As far as the second prayer for a direction to the NDMC as well as the GNCT of Delhi to frame guidelines is concerned, we notice that the electricity is supplied by the second respondent as per the conditions of service agreement and parties to the Agreement shall abide by the same and it would not be justifiable for this Court to direct the parties to incorporate certain conditions in the Agreement. As on today, the dispute is only with regard to the quantum of the amount to be paid by the first respondent to the second respondent and the same is pending before the Commission and can be resolved on the basis of the Agreement. The order that may be passed by the Commission may take care of the grievance of the petitioner made in prayer (b) in the writ petition. As the issue with regard to the dispute between the first and second respondent is recurring in nature, we only observe that the first respondent should take steps to get the pending dispute resolved through the Commission as early as possible and in any case, in a period of three months. Though the above direction may fall outside the scope of a writ petition, we are inclined to say that directions can be made in the interest of the public who should not suffer the power supply to the street lights. In view of the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Disposed off.