LPA/1012/2024 of ANKIT SHARMA Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+LPA 1012/2024

ANKIT SHARMA.....AppellantThrough:MrJaiWadhwaandMrRonakKaranpuria, Advocates.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr Deepak K. Vijay and Ms NeeruSharma, Advocates for BSES.

CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R R16.12.2024

1.The appellant has filed the present intra court appeal impugning an orderdated 06.09.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge had declined to entertainthe petition filed by the petitioner and had relegated the petitioner to avail hisremedies before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

2.The appellant had filed the writ petition [W.P.(C) 12539/2024], interalia, praying as under:

“a)Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order, or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to processthe Petitioner’s application and issue an electricityconnection to the Petitioner at the Tenanted Premiseswithout insisting on an NOC from the landlord.order, or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to processthe Petitioner’s application and issue an electricityconnection to the Petitioner at the Tenanted Premiseswithout insisting on an NOC from the landlord.

3.The appellant claims that he is tenant in the premises described as 906,Third Floor, F-2 Gali Inder, Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi (thehereafter the subject premises) and has been occupying the said premises since19.04.2024. The appellant has also produced the Rent Agreement dated19.04.2024 in respect of the said premises. The appellant has been unable to

obtain an electricity connection from respondent no.2, BSES Yamuna PowerLimited, for the reason that the owner of the said premises – which is theappellant’s father – has not furnished No Objection Certificate (NOC) for theappellant to obtain an electricity connection.

4.The owner of the premises (the petitioner’s father) has declined to issuean NOC. However, there appears to be no dispute that he had entered into theRent Agreement with the appellant.

5.The appellant’s father had also joined the proceedings through videoconferencing on 12.12.2024 and he had categorically refused to provide anNOC. He stated that he did not wish to take any responsibility for the same.

6.It is the appellant’s case that the electricity is basic amenity, whichcannot be denied to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has alsorelied on various decisions including the decision of the learned Single Judgeof this Court in Real Anchors Projects LLP & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.:W.P.(C) 17470/2022, decided on 11.01.2023, in support of the said contention.It is noticed that the court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court inDilip (Dead) through LRs v. Satish & Ors.: Criminal Appeal No.810/2022and accepted the contention that the provision of electricity cannot be deniedwithout any cogent or lawful reason.

7.We consider it apposite to set out paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the saiddecision, which are reproduced below:

“5. There is no gainsaying that electricity is an essential service,of which person cannot be deprived without cogent, lawfulreason. It is well-settled that even if disputes exist as to ownershipof the property at which an electricity connection is sought, theconcerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant thereofby insisting that an NOC be furnished from others who also claimto be owners. Under similar circumstance, where request for

supply of electricity connection was declined to tenant by theauthorities, the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v.Satish & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 810/2022 observed asunder: -

“It is now well settled proposition of law thatelectricity is basic amenity of which person cannotbe deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to tenanton the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issueno objection certificate. All that the electricity supplyauthority is required to examine is whether theapplicant for electricity connection is in occupation ofthe premises in question.

xxx

The impugned order cannot be sustained and the sameis set aside.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

It is however made clear that electricity supply granted,shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by theRespondents of the terms and conditions of supply ofelectricity by the electricity department includingpayment of charges for the same.”

6. Keeping in view the aforenoted observations of the SupremeCourt, the present writ petition is disposed of in the followingterms:

(i) Petitioners shall make an application for grant of freshelectricity connection in their own name.

(ii) Respondent No. 2 shall process the petitioners’ applicationfor providing fresh electricity connection forthwith withoutinsisting on NOC from respondent No. 3 within two weeks fromthe date of filing of the application.

(iii) Petitioners shall comply with all the codal and commercialrequirements of respondent No. 2.

(iv) Petitioners shall deposit additional sum with respondent No.2 as may be required in addition to the regular security that theyare required to under the rules or regulations.

(v) Petitioners shall pay the consumption charges in accordancewith the bills raised by respondent No. 2 from time to time/tillthe time they occupy the subject premises.

(vi) Petitioners shall not seek adjustment of the security deposit.However, on the petitioners vacating the premises or beingevicted and surrender of the electricity meter, petitioners shall beentitled to refund of the security deposit subject to adjustment ofany dues of respondent No.2.

(vii) Respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to disconnect theelectricity supply at the subject premises in case petitioners failto pay the electricity charges.

(viii) Application of the petitioners shall be processed andelectricity connection shall be installed within two working daysof the petitioners completing al the formalities.”

8.After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsubmits that the order imposing similar terms as are set out in paragraph no.6of the decision in Real Anchors Projects LLP & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.(supra) may be passed in this case as well.

9.In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by permitting theappellant to make an application for grant of fresh electricity connection inhis own name. Respondent no.2 shall process the said application withoutinsisting on NOC from the owner (Mr Deepak Sharma) of the subject premiseswithin period of two weeks from date of filing of the said application.

10.It is clarified that the appellant will pay all necessary charges includingsecurity charges for securing separate connection. The terms and conditionsas set out in paragraph no.6 of the Real Anchors Projects LLP & Ors. v. NCTof Delhi & Ors. (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply in the present case.

11.We also clarify that the connection provided to the appellant would be atemporary connection and unless the appellant produces the documents toestablish that its agreement is extended, the respondents would be at liberty to

discontinue the provision of electricity connection on termination of rentagreement.

12.It is also clarified that nothing stated in this order should be construed asprejudicing the right of the owner of the property in question (the appellant’sfather – Mr Deepak Sharma) or any other party. It is also clarified that theappellant will not claim any equities on the basis of this order or on the basisof respondent no.2 providing electricity on temporary basis.

13.The appeal is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

DECEMBER 16, 2024RK

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

Click here to check corrigendum, if any