Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ No. 1528 of 1985

Advocates

Mukul Rohatgi with A.S. Gambhir
V.P. Singh
(for No. 1) and J.M. Sabharwal
(for No. 2)

Judges

B.N KIRPAL, J.

Acts

provisions of Cl. 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order
URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATION ACT 1976
Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act
Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959,
Municipal Corporation Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter concerns whether occupants of premises that were not constructed according to sanctioned plans and are effectively unauthorised are entitled to demand an electricity connection from D.E.S.U.

Key factual and procedural milestones (as stated in the opinion):

The property known as B‑5, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi (1250 sq. yards) was owned by Om Prakash Gupta and Neelam Gupta and, by sale deed dated 4 December 1981, was said to have been sold to M/s Ashoka Builders and Contractors (respondent No. 3).
On 6 May 1982 an application for sanctioning building plans was filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by the erstwhile owners (O.P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta). Plans were sanctioned on 14 July 1982 on the basis of undertakings by those owners.
A notice to show cause was issued on 8 September 1983 under the Municipal Corporation Act alleging violations of the sanctioned plans (excess covered areas, demolition affecting Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, misrepresentation). A reply denying violations was sent on 16 September 1983. MCD revoked sanction on 18 September 1984.
Despite revocation, a completion certificate was issued on 6 December 1984 in the names of O.P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta describing extensive accommodation in the building.
The petitioner (D.K. Wadhwa) rented a two‑room first floor flat from respondent No. 3 effective 1 January 1985 for Rs. 800 per month. There was no electricity at the time; petitioner applied for supply on 17 January 1985. By letter dated 12 February 1985 DESU declined to grant a new connection referring to directions received from MCD.
The petitioner earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed for failure to issue required notice under the D.M.C. Act. The present writ petition sought to quash DESU’s letter and direct grant of a new connection.
Rule was issued on 11 August 1985; by interim order dated 19 August 1985 DESU was directed to give a temporary connection to the petitioner, and the petitioner did obtain a temporary connection.
Allegations were made by respondents that the premises were being used for commercial purposes. A Local Commissioner was appointed by order dated 15 July 1987 to inspect and report on conformity with sanctioned plans and actual use. The Local Commissioner reported on 16 July 1987 that respondent No. 3’s representative conceded non‑conformity with sanctioned plans; the petitioner’s flat (No. 9) appeared unoccupied; and the meter meant for the petitioner also supplied electricity to two other flats (No. 3 and No. 1A).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether occupants of premises not constructed according to sanctioned plans (i.e., unauthorised occupants) are entitled to demand an electricity connection from the licensee (D.E.S.U.).
How Clause 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959 should be construed — specifically whether the alternatives separated by “or” in Clause 4C are disjunctive (either/or) or must be read together (i.e., whether production of a completion certificate is required in addition to proof of title/tenancy).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner (through Shri Rohatgi) stated he inspected the sale deed, sanction plans and the completion certificate before taking the flat on rent; thus he claimed to be a lawful and authorised occupant entitled to an electricity connection.
The petitioner argued that Clause 4C uses the word “or” repeatedly, and that “or” should be read disjunctively — i.e., production of any one of the listed documents (completion certificate, document of title if owner, or a valid rent receipt/other documentary proof of lawful occupation) is sufficient to obtain a connection.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents submitted that the premises were not authorised for construction, and consequently the petitioner was not entitled to a connection.
They argued the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands and could not claim a better title than the owner — if the owner is not entitled, the tenant cannot insist on a connection.
The respondents relied on regulatory provisions (Clauses 4C and 4D of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959) and facts suggesting commercial use and misuse of the interim connection.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
C.W. No. 1341 of 1986 (Order dated 10 February 1987)	Earlier Division Bench observation that "The respondent shall not insist for the production of the lease and the completion certificate" and that there was no statutory requirement to furnish those documents.	The court distinguished this authority: it observed that the Division Bench in C.W. No. 1341 of 1986 did not appear to have been shown Clause 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, and therefore those observations were of little assistance in the present matter. The court declined to follow C.W. No. 1341 as being inapposite given Clause 4C.
C.W. No. 260 of 1986	Referenced procedurally as another writ matter in which inspection of premises was relevant; the Local Commissioner was to inspect premises in both the present petition and C.W. No. 260 of 1986.	The court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and to report on both matters (including C.W. No. 260 of 1986). The Local Commissioner’s report (dated 16 July 1987) featured in the court’s factual findings and influenced the decision (concession of non‑conformity, non‑residence of petitioner, and meter irregularity).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court set out a step‑by‑step analysis, rooted in the statutory framework and the regulatory order:

Statutory and regulatory framework:
- Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 obliges a licensee to supply energy within its area of supply, subject to terms and conditions of the licence.
- Section 22B empowers the State Government to regulate supply, distribution and consumption to maintain supply and secure equitable distribution of energy; under this power the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959 was issued (notification dated 23 November 1959).
- Clauses 4C and 4D of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959 impose conditions on grant of fresh connections: Clause 4C prohibits fresh connections to unauthorised occupants unless the consumer produces (a) a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority, or (b) a document of title if the applicant is owner, or (c) a valid rent receipt/note or other valid documentary proof of lawful occupation. Clause 4D requires additional municipal licences/NOCs for commercial or industrial loads.
Interpretation of Clause 4C:
- The petitioner urged a disjunctive interpretation of the repeated word "or" in Clause 4C (i.e., produce any one of the listed documents would suffice).
- The court rejected that construction. It reasoned that Clause 4C is headed "Prohibition on the installation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants" and that a disjunctive reading would subvert the clause's object by permitting electricity to persons who may not be authorised occupants (for example, someone with only a completion certificate but no title or lawful occupation).
- The court observed that the Municipal Corporation Act prohibits occupation of a newly constructed building unless permission to occupy (e.g., a completion certificate) has been obtained. Consequently the court held Clause 4C must be read so that an applicant must produce both: (i) a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority, and (ii) proof of title if owner, or valid rent receipt/other documentary proof if an occupant (i.e., the first "or" must, in context, be read as "and"). The court noted that in certain circumstances "or" may be construed as "and" and that this was one of those cases.
Application of the regulatory requirements to the facts:
- The Local Commissioner’s report confirmed the building was not constructed in accordance with sanctioned plans (respondent No. 3's representative conceded this), the petitioner was not residing in flat No. 9 (it appeared unoccupied), and the petitioner's meter was supplying electricity to two other flats — indicating misuse/abuse of the interim permission for electricity.
- Clause 4D (commercial/industrial connections) supplements Clause 4C; although the petitioner applied for a domestic connection, the Local Commissioner’s report suggested commercial use and that the petitioner would have had to comply with Clause 4D for commercial use, which he had not.
Equitable considerations and conduct:
- The court examined the conduct of the parties and found problematic circumstances: sanctioned plans were sought in names of the former owners despite sale to respondent No. 3; sanctioned plans were revoked; a completion certificate was nevertheless obtained after revocation (allegedly with connivance of municipal employees); portions of the building were let or sold by respondent No. 3 though completion certificate and sanctioning appeared in the names of O.P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta.
- The court observed the petitioner did not make enquiries about the absence of electricity before accepting the tenancy and accepted the tenancy without a connection. Given the irregularities and the petitioner’s lack of due inquiry, the court was not disposed to grant equitable relief.
- The interim temporary connection had been granted only to D.K. Wadhwa by the court’s order; the Local Commissioner reported that the petitioner allowed that connection to extend to other flats, an act the court characterised as an abuse of the court’s process and a disentitling factor to equitable relief under Article 226.
Treatment of conflicting authority:
- The court considered and distinguished the order in C.W. No. 1341 of 1986 (where it was said the respondent shall not insist on production of lease/completion certificate) by noting that Clause 4C had apparently not been brought to that Division Bench's attention; thus that order could not be relied upon to negate the obligations under Clause 4C.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

Writ petition dismissed.

The court ordered dismissal of the petition with costs (counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 1,000). The core legal conclusions underlying the dismissal were:

The regulatory framework (Clause 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959) must be read to require both (a) production of a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority and (b) production of proof of ownership or lawful occupation (document of title if owner, or valid rent receipt/other documentary proof if occupant) before a fresh domestic connection may be granted; the clause's repeated “or” must be read in context so that the first “or” operates effectively as “and”.
Occupants of premises constructed without approval/authorisation (i.e., unauthorised premises) are not entitled to demand an electricity connection from the licensee where the regulatory conditions are not satisfied.
The petitioner was disentitled to equitable relief under Article 226 because of the misuse of the interim connection (extension of supply to other flats in breach of the court’s direction) and because he had not taken reasonable care to ascertain the legality of occupation and existence of an electric connection prior to taking the tenancy.

Implications for the parties: The immediate consequence is that the petitioner is denied a permanent electricity connection and the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The opinion interprets Clause 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959 and applies that interpretation to the facts; the court did not expressly state that it was creating new legal precedent beyond applying and construing the regulatory provisions to the case facts.

Petition dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Devinder Kumar Wadhwa v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking And Others

An important question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the occupants of premises which have not been constructed according to any sanctioned plans and are, in a sense, unauthorised, are entitled to demand electricity connection from D.E.S.U

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that a building known as B-5, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi was a property situated on land measuring 1250 sq. yards. This property was owned by Om Prakash Gupta and Neelam Gupta and by sale deed dated 4th December, 1981 it was said to M/s. Ashoka Builders and Contractors, a partnership firm, respondent No. 3 in this petition.

3. On 6th May, 1982 application was filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for sanctioning of the building plans for erection/construction of residential building consisting of a basement for domestic storage, additions and alterations on ground floor, first floor and barsati. The Application for the sanction plans was made not by respondent No. 3 but by the erstwhile owners, namely, Neelam Gupta and O.P Gupta. On 14th July, 1982 these plans were sanctioned on the basis of undertakings and statements furnished by O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta.

4. After the construction commenced, on 8th September, 1983, a notice to show cause was issued under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act in which it was stated that on the inspection of the site it was found that O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta had violated conditions of sanction and the undertakings and statement which had been furnished by them in the following manner :

“(1) The covered area of basement as achieved at site is more than sanctioned as well as compoundable limits.

(2) The covered area of Ground floor as achieved at site is more than sanctioned as well as compoundable limits.

(3) The existing covered area at ground floor proposed for retention has been demolished thereby provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 have been violated.

Had you proposed demolition of existing structures the plans would have not been sanctioned by MCD as such.”

It was also mentioned in the said notice that it appeared that the builders had no intention of construction according to the sanctioned plans and they were guilty of misrepresentation and fraudulent statements. They were accordingly asked to show cause as to why the sanction of the plan which had been given should not be revoked and the work which had commenced or had been erected should not be treated as being without any valid sanction. To this notice reply was sent purportedly under the signatures of O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta on 16th September, 1983. It was denied that there had been violations of the sanctioned plan. On 18th September, 1984 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi revoked the sanction of the plans which had been accorded earlier.

5. Curiously enough, or perhaps it is not curious as far as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is concerned where anything can happen, whereas on 18th September, 1984 the sanctioned plans had been revoked, on 6th December, 1984, O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta succeeded in obtaining a completion certificate. This completion certificate was in respect of the building on 1250 sq. yards which was supposed to contain the following accommodation :

“No. 1. Basement Floor.

No. 2. Ground Floor, rooms 23 Nos., Toilets 10 Nos. Kitchen 7 Nos.

No. 3. Mezz. Floor, Rooms 12 Nos., Toilets 6 Nos., Stores 6 Nos.

No. 4. First Floor, Rooms 24 Nos., Toilets 16 Nos., Kitchen 8 Nos.

No. 5. Barasati Floor, Rooms 9 Nos., Kitchen 3 Nos. Toilets 6 Nos.

6. The case of the petitioners is that with effect from Ist January, 1985 they took on rent a two room flat on the first floor in the said building at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from respondent No. 3. Admittedly at the time when the premises were taken on rent there was no electricity there. On 17th January, 1985 an application was made by the petitioner for electricity. By letter dated 12th February 1985 the petitioner was informed that DESU was not able to grant a new connection in view of the directions which had been received from Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

7. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit for permanent injunction but the same was dismissed on the ground that no notice had been issued under the D.M.C Act. It is thereafter that the present petition was filed praying that the decision of DESU contained in its letter dated 12th February, 1985 declining to grant electricity connection be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant a new electric connection to the petitioner at the aforesaid premises.

8. On 11th August, 1985 rule was issued in this petition and by way of an interim arrangement, DESU was directed to give temporary connection to the petitioner. It might here be stated that the application by the petitioner was for a domestic connection and, after the aforesaid direction dated 19th August, 1985 was issued, the petitioner did obtain a temporary connection.

9. When the petition came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, it had been represented by the counsel for the respondents that the premises in question were being used by the petitioners not for domestic purposes but were being used for commercial purposes. In order to find out whether this allegation was correct or not a local Commissioner was appointed by order dated 15th July, 1987 who was required to inspect the premises in question and to see and report whether the premises which were in the occupation of the petitioners, in this petition as well as in C.W No. 260 of 1986 were constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans. The Local Commissioner was also required to report on the question as to what use the premises in question were being put to.

10. The Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 16th July 1987. In his report it was stated, inter alia, that when he visited the premises in question he met the representative of respondent No. 3 who conceded that the building had not been constructed according to the sanction plans. In the report it was also stated by the Local Commissioner that the flat of D.K Wadhwa petitioner was pointed out to him being flat No. 9. The report further indicated that the petitioner was not residing in this flat and the flat appeared to have been unoccupied for the last many months. The more startling thing which was reported was that when the electric connection of this flat was switched off from the main switch simultaneously electricity of two other flats, namely, flat No. 3 and flat No. 1A also went off. The Local Commissioner indicated that this meter, which was meant to be supplying electricity only to the petitioner, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court was infact supplying electricity to two other flats as well. The Local Commissioner was unable to inspect the flat of Smt. Satya Wati Aggarwal, petitioner in Civil Writ No. 260 of 1986.

11. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of law applicable in the present case. Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 makes it obligatory on the licensee to supply energy within the area of supply and the said Section reads as follows :

“22. Obligation on licensee to supply energy.— Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the license, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in 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 agreed 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.”

The power to control the distribution and consumption of electricity is provided for by S. 22B of the said Act which reads as under :

“22B. Power to control the distribution and consumption of energy.—

(1) If the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, for maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy, it may by order provide for regulating the supply, distribution, consumption or use thereof.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) and order made thereunder may direct the licensee not to comply, except with the permission of the State Government, with —

(i) the provisions of any contract, agreement or requisition whether made before or after the commencement of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959, for the supply (other than the resumption of a supply) or an increase in the supply of energy to any person, or

(ii) any requisition for the resumption of supply of energy to a consumer after a period of six months, from the date of its discontinuance, or

(iii) any requisition for the resumption of supply of energy made within six months of its discontinuance, where the requisitioning consumer was not himself the consumer of the supply at the time of its discontinuance.”

12. It will be seen that S. 22B(1) gives the State Government the power to pass appropriate orders providing for maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy. In exercise of this power, by notification dated 23rd November, 1959 the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959. Two clauses which are of relevance in the present case are Cls. 4C and 4D, which read as follows :

“4C. Prohibition on the installation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants - Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or agreement or in any licence granted under the Act or in any requisition no licensee shall make fresh supply of energy/increase supply of energy in case of commercial/domestic or industrial load in favour of any consumer at any premises till the said consumer produces a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority concerned/or document of title in respect of such premises if he is the owner thereof, or produces a valid rent receipt/mote or other valid documentary proof of being the lawful occupant thereof.

Provided that permanent electric connection may be provided to the occupiers of Government premises against the up-to-date receipt towards “damage for unauthorised occupation” executed by the Department of Rehabilitation without production of documentary proof of lawful occupation.

4D. Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or agreement or any licence granted under the Act or in any requisition no licensee shall make fresh supply of energy in case of commercial or industrial load in favour of any consumer at any premises till the said consumer produces a valid Municipal Licence or ‘No Objection Certificate’ or Lal Dora Certificate if any required under any Municipal Law or rules in force within the limits of the local body where the said premises are situated.”

13. The contention of Shri Rohatgi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as far as the petitioner is concerned he had inspected the sale deed which showed that respondent No. 3 was the owner the property in question. The petitioner is also alleged to have seen the sanction plans as well as the completion certificate and it is only thereafter that he took the premises on rent. It was contended that the petitioner is a lawful and authorised occupant of the premises in question and on a correct interpretation of cl. 4C of the Order, the respondents were under an obligation to provide him with electric connection.

14. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of an electric connection because the premises in question were not authorised for construction and, further, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is also the submission of the respondents that the petitioner cannot get a more or a better right than the owner of the premises in question and if the owner is not entitled to get an electric connection then, it must follow, that the tenant likewise can also not insist on an electric connection.

15. There is no doubt that under S. 22 of the Act a licensee is obliged to supply electricity to every person within the area in respect of which licence has been granted to the supplier. In the present case the licensee is Municipal Corporation of Delhi and in respect of the municipal area it is under an obligation to provide electric connection. Section 22, however, says that this right is subject to what may be provided to the contrary by the terms and conditions of the licence. Section 22B provides for the control and distribution of consumption of electricity and it enables the Government to provide for regulations with regard to the supply, distribution and consumption of electricity. These regulations are required to be framed for the purpose of maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy. It is evident, therefore, that in order to ensure the maintenance of the supply and securing equitable distribution of energy, regulations can lay down the terms and conditions which must be fulfilled before a consumer is entitled to ask for an electric connection. It is at this stage that it becomes important to examine, in greater detail, the provisions of Cls. 4C and 4D of the 1959 Order.

16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Cl. 4C repeatedly uses the word “or”. His submission is that the word “or” in this clause cannot mean “and” and, therefore, if he is able to prove his lawful occupation of the premises in question then he is entitled to the grant of an electric connection. It is submitted by him that the last portion of Cl. 4C indicates that a licensee is obliged to grant an electric connection if a consumer produces a valid rent receipt/note or other valid documentary proof of being the lawful occupant thereof. It is submitted by Shri Rohatgi that it is not necessary that in addition to the proof of lawful occupation of the premises the petitioner must also produce a completion certificate from the Municipal Local Authority concerned. The learned counsel submits that production of such a certificate is in the alternative.

17. Clause 4C, as the heading indicates, is meant to contain a prohibition on the installation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants. Neither the order nor the Act defines the expression “unauthorised occupants”, but the common meaning and understanding of the expression would be an occupant who is not authorised to occupy a particular premises. The occupant may be unauthorised either because the owner has not allowed the occupant to occupy it or it may be unauthorised because the law does not permit the occupation of those premises. Clause 4C, inter alia, states that no licence for fresh supply of energy will be granted unless and until “the said consumer produces a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority concerned/or document of title in respect of such premises if he is the owner thereof, or produces a valid rent receipt/note or other valid documentary proof of being the lawful occupant thereof.” There are two ways in which this portion of Cl. 4C can be read. According to the petitioner this provision means that in order to get an electric connection, the consumer is to produce either a Municipal/Local Authority's completion certificate or document of title that he is the owner thereof or a valid rent receipt or valid documentary proof of his being the lawful occupant thereof. Mr. Rohatgi submits that an applicant is to produce only one of the aforesaid documents and it is not necessary for him to produce the completion certificate in addition to showing his right to occupy the premises.

18. I am unable to accept this construction of Cl. 4C. The object of Cl. 4C being to prohibit installation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants, the very object would be defeated if such a literal construction, as suggested by the petitioner, is given to this provision. If the contention of the petitioner is correct then it would be possible that an application for electric connection may be filed, on the strength of the completion certificate which may have been granted, even by a person who may neither be the owner nor a lawful occupant. Such a person will not be an authorised occupant of the premises. As the heading suggests, Cl. 4C is meant to contain a prohibition on the installation of connections in favour of unauthorised occupants. The construction sought to be placed on Cl. 4C by the petitioner would, therefore, as is evident from the aforesaid example, run counter to the intention and purpose of Cl. 4C. Furthermore, an occupant of premises which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has not authorised to be occupied is also an unauthorised occupant. Therefore, grant of an electric connection to an owner or a tenant of the premises which are not permitted to be occupied would also amount to grant of a connection to an unauthorised occupant and which is not contemplated by Cl. 4C.

19. It is now well settled that, under certain circumstances, the word “or” may be construed as meaning “and”. This is one such case where such a construction has to be resorted to. As I read Cl. 4C, it appears to me that it makes it obligatory on the consumer of electricity to produce two things. Firstly a completion certificate from the Municipal/Local Authority concerned should be produced, and secondly the applicant should produce document of title in respect of such premises, if he is the owner, or a valid rent receipt/note or other valid documentary proof of being the lawful occupant thereof. The Municipal Corporation Act clearly prohibits the occupation of a building which is newly constructed unless permission for occupying the same has been obtained from the Corporation either by the grant of such a permission or by the grant of a completion certificate. It is difficult to imagine that where no such permission to occupy is granted, the Corporation is nevertheless under an obligation to provide electricity to an occupant of the said premises who, in violation of the law, is in occupation thereof. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct, then it would mean that if a violator of law constructs premises on public land, on which he has no authority to construct, and then lets out the same, then his tenant can insist on an electric connection though his landlord may or may not have been able to ask for the same. On the other hand, by reading the first “or” as “and” it would ensure that it is only an authorised occupant who would be entitled to get the electric connection because then the requirement of obtaining an electric connection would be that an applicant has to be a person who is not only a trespasser but the premises have also to be authorised to be occupied.

20. At this stage, reference may be made to Cl. 4D. The said clause refers to the grant of electric connection in case of commercial or industrial load. The said clause provides that where any such grant is to be made for commercial or industrial load, the consumer must produce a valid Municipal licence or ‘No Objection Certificate’ or Lal Dora Certificate. It is clear, therefore, that the requirement of Cl. 4D, in respect of commercial and industrial load, is in addition to the requirement provided by Cl. 4C. For domestic load Cl. 4D does not come into operation, but in the present case the report of the Local Commissioner indicates that the petitioner is not residing at the premises in question and, secondly, electric connection from the meter which has been installed for the petitioner has also been given to two other flats which are being used for commercial purposes. If the petitioner was to use the load for commercial purposes, then he should have complied with the provisions of Cl. 4D, which has admittedly not been done in the present case.

21. Learned counsel had urged that the petitioner had taken all due care and caution in examining the title deeds and other documents before acquiring the premises in question. In order to see whether on equitable consideration some relief can be granted to the petitioner, at the risk of repetition, let us examine the scenario which is unfolded from the facts enumerated above :

(a) Respondent No. 3 purchased the property on 4th December, 1981.

(b) Notwithstanding that O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta were no longer the owners, nevertheless steps were taken in their names for obtaining the sanction of the building plans.

(c) Admittedly the building was constructed in violation of the sanctioned plans and the building bye-laws of the Corporation.

(d) The sanctioned plans were revoked on 18th September, 1984.

(e) After the revocation of the sanctioned plans, it is only, possibly, with the connivance of one or more Municipal employees that respondent No. 3 fraudulently succeeded in obtaining a completion certificate in the name of O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta.

(f) Different portions of the building were let or agreed to be sold, not in the name of O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta but by respondent No. 3.

If the petitioner had been careful, as has been suggested, he would have seen that all was not above-board, for though respondent No. 3 was supposed to be the owner, in fact the sanction of the building plans and completion certificate were obtained in the name of O.P Gupta and Neelam Gupta. The petitioner should further have been put on guard by the fact that there was no electric connection. If the petitioner was really as careful as he professes to be, he would have enquired as to why electric connection had not been obtained. Having admittedly not made any such enquiries, at least from DESU, and having accepted the tenancy without an electric connection, he cannot now be allowed to cry wolf. Furthermore, it is evident, and the petitioner must have been aware of this, that the premises in question were meant to be residential. The electric connection which was applied for was for domestic use. Nevertheless the report of the Local Commissioner makes it clear that, after having obtained a temporary connection by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the electricity was being used for commercial purposes. The report further shows that the premises in question were not in use for residential purposes, and had in fact never been so used. It is clear that the building having been constructed in an unauthorised manner and the Builder having failed in his efforts to get an electric connection, it is the tenants and the prospective purchasers who have approached the Court in order to get the electric connection. Merely because the petitioner, and others situated like him, may suffer some financial loss cannot be a ground for directing electric connection to be granted to them if, in law, the respondents are under no obligation to sanction such a connection.

22. In any case, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not entitled to any equitable relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By virtue of interim orders dated 19th August, 1985, the respondent D.E.S.U was directed to give a temporary connection to the petitioner. This order was only in favour of D.K Wadhwa and in favour of no one else. The report of the Local Commissioner, referred to above, indicates that in contravention of the terms of this order D.K Wadhwa has allowed electric connection to be extended to two other flats, namely, flat No. 1-A and flat No. 3 in the same building. The said sub-letting is clearly an abuse of the process of the court and this conduct clearly disentitles him to the discretionary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

23. Before concluding, I may refer to the order dated 10th February, 1987 passed in Civil Writ No. 1341 of 1986, on which strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case also the question arose with regard to grant of electric connection in respect of building for which completion certificate had not been obtained. Particular emphasis is laid by the learned counsel on that part of the order wherein it is stated that “The respondent shall not insist for the production of the lease and the completion certificate.” The Court has also observed that there was no statutory requirement for furnishing other documents and that the counsel for the respondent had not shown any provision or rule which required the production of those documents. It is evident to me that the attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to the provisions of Cl. 4C of the Delhi Electricity Control Order which, in my opinion, makes it obligatory for the production of the completion certificate in order to obtain an electric connection. The observations of the Division Bench in C.W No. 1341 of 1986 can be of little assistance to the counsel for the petitioner.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1000/-.

Petition dismissed.

Devinder Kumar Wadhwa v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Devinder Kumar Wadhwa v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking And Others

Comments