DATE: 13/11/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Mini Pushkarna
FACTS:
A set of writ petitions were filed
challenging the directions issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
(CGRF), which had ordered BSES Yamuna Power Limited to provide electricity
connections to certain premises booked by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(MCD) for unauthorized construction. The petitioner electricity company argued
that these CGRF directions violated their internal circulars prohibiting grant
of electricity connections to properties where unauthorized construction
existed. The MCD confirmed during proceedings that the subject properties had
indeed been booked for unauthorized construction.
Despite being booked, the private parties
occupying these properties contended that no action such as sealing or
demolition, had been taken by the MCD even after significant time had passed.
Many such properties continued to remain occupied. The CGRF, while directing
electricity supply, had noted that over three years had passed since demolition
orders were issued against one such property, yet the MCD had not taken any
enforcement action. The High Court took note of this factual background as well
as the broader pattern of delays in MCD action against unauthorized
constructions due to appeals, regularization applications, statutory
protections, procedural lapses, and operational constraints.
ISSUES:
The central issue was whether the CGRF was
justified in directing BSES Yamuna Power Limited to grant electricity
connections to premises booked for unauthorized construction, despite company
circulars barring such supply. The Court had to determine whether denying
electricity in such circumstances was lawful, particularly when MCD had not
taken timely action against the unauthorized structures and the properties
remained occupied.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court upheld the CGRF’s directions
and held that electricity connections may be granted or continued even in
premises booked for unauthorized construction, as long as no demolition or
sealing action is being undertaken by the MCD. The Court issued practice
directions mandating that DISCOMs must disconnect electricity only when the MCD
actually initiates coercive action such as demolition or sealing. The writ
petitions were accordingly disposed of.
The Court observed that unauthorized
constructions frequently remain in place for prolonged periods due to multiple
legal and administrative hurdles that prevent the MCD from acting promptly.
These include pending appeals before the Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD),
applications for regularization, statutory protection under the National
Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011,
procedural lapses requiring remand, and practical difficulties such as lack of
police force or public resistance. As a result, many properties, although
officially “booked,” remain occupied for years without demolition or sealing.
The Court emphasized that merely booking a property for unauthorized
construction does not imply immediate or inevitable punitive action, and the
occupants’ basic needs cannot be suspended indefinitely in the meantime.
The Court further reasoned that denying
electricity in such situations leads to severe practical and safety issues,
including increased risk of electricity theft and associated hazards. It found
CGRF’s approach sensible, given that prolonged inaction by the MCD leaves
occupants without lawful means to access essential utilities. The Court
clarified that granting electricity cannot be treated as legitimizing
unauthorized construction, and that the power company’s circulars cannot
override the pragmatic need to prevent illegal electricity use. To balance
interests, the Court laid down clear practice directions: electricity must be
supplied while the premises remain occupied and no action is underway, but must
be disconnected immediately upon MCD’s request during actual demolition or
sealing. This balanced framework, the Court held, protects public safety,
respects municipal authority, and prevents misuse of power infrastructure.
ANALYSIS:
The case highlights the tension between
municipal regulatory frameworks governing unauthorized constructions and the
practical necessity of ensuring access to basic utilities for residents. The
Delhi High Court recognized that although properties may be “booked” for
unauthorized construction, this status often does not translate into timely
enforcement action by the MCD due to systemic delays appeals, regularization
attempts, statutory protections, and administrative shortcomings. In such a
scenario, strictly applying DISCOM circulars to deny electricity would result
in disproportionate hardship to occupants, many of whom continue to live in these
structures for years while the municipal process remains stalled. The Court
therefore treated electricity as a basic service that cannot be indefinitely
withheld when the authorities themselves have not acted on demolition or
sealing orders.
At the same time, the judgment carefully
preserves the regulatory authority of the MCD by mandating that electricity
must be cut off immediately once demolition or sealing actually begins. This
ensures that the supply of electricity does not legitimize illegal construction
but merely accommodates practical realities until lawful enforcement is
undertaken. By balancing individual needs with municipal authority, the Court
endorsed a pragmatic, safety-oriented approach, recognizing that denial of
electricity fosters theft and greater hazards. Thus, the analysis reflects a
judicial effort to reconcile strict urban-planning norms with the lived
realities of governance delays, ensuring fairness without weakening statutory
powers.
info@adhwaitha.com