Thapar Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 94 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of manda- mus directing the respondents to sanction supply of permanent electricity load of 50 Kw at the petitioners' building situated at plot no. 2 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road; Paharganj, New Delhi.

(2) An auction was conducted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on 15.2.1987 of a commercial plot bearing plot no. 2 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi ad measuring 40' X 57'. The petitioners gavebidofRs.l,07,01,000.00 for the said plot and since the petitioners' bid was highest, it was accepted by the Corporation and by letter dt. 2.3.1987 the Corporation confirmed to the petitioners that the petiioners' bid had been accepted and the petitioners were asked to make payment of the full consideration. Accordingly, the petitioners aid the full consideration and on 4.6.1987 possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioners and a perpetual lease deed was. executed by the Corporation in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter submitted plans for sanction of a building on the said plot. On 3.6.87 the Corporation issued a No-Objection Certificate for sanction of the building plans. Thereafter, the petitioners completed the construction of the commercial plot and applied to the Corporation for Completion and Occupancy Certificates. The building of the petitioners was inspected by the Fire Department and by letter dated 2.6.89 the Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Fire Service informed the Corporation that No-Objection Certificate from fire safety point of view was not required as the building was below 15 mts. in height and was considered to be a low-rise building. Thereafter, necessary verification was done by the Corporation and on 4.9.89, Completion and Occupancy Certificates were issued for the said building. Thereafter, on 5.9.89 the petitioners applied to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as D.E.S.U.) for permanent electricity load of 50 Kw for the said building.

(3) While the application for permanent electricity load was under consideration, in order to avoid further delay, the petitioners on 11.9.89 applied for temporary load of 15 Kw for lighting purpose pending sanction and supply of permanent electricity load of , KW. However, the D.E.S.U. took no decision on the application of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(4) On Notice to Show Cause being issued by this Court, the D.E.S.U. filed a counter-affidavit showing cause. By order dated 6.12.1989 an interim order was passed by this Court directing the D.E.S.U. to grant a temporary electricity load of 15 Kw to the petitioners. The main contention of the D.E.S.U. in reply to the Show Cause Notice is that 50% of the electrification charges are to be paid by the Corporation and since these charges are not paid, the load asked for by the petitioners cannot be granted. On a specific request made by the learned counsel appearing for D.E.S.U., on 19.4.90 a Notice was issued to the Corporation in the writ petition and on 26.10.1990 the Commissioner of Corporation was asked to depute some responsible officer to answer why the scheme of electrification is not being implemented in the area in which the property in question is situated.

(5) Despite the notice issued by this Court, the Corporation did not eater appearance in this Court and the case was adjourned time and again to enable the counsel for the Corporation to appear and make a statement in court and ultimately only on 21.1.91, counsel appeared for the Corporation and sought time to file the counter-affidavit. He had no explanation to offer as to why no one had chosen to appear for the Corporation despite notice by this Court both to the Commissioner as well as to the Standing Counsel for Corporation. However, in the interest of justice, a request for filing the counter affidavit was granted subject to payment of costs on 21.1.91. When the case came up again on 1.2.91, the Corporation neither filed the counter-affidavit nor paid the costs. One more opportunity was given to the Corporation to file the counter-affidavit and pay the costs.

(6) Today, again when the case came up, counsel for the Corporation has appeared but neither the costs have been paid nor the counter-affidavit has been filed. In fact, learned counsel for the Corporation states that the Corporation has no interest in this case and the Corporation has nothing to add in response to the Show Cause Notice. This means that the Corporation admits all the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition and also the averments made by the D.E.S.U. in the counter-affidavit to the Show Cause Notice.

(7) I wonder whether the Commissioner of the Corporation is at all aware of the proceedings in this Court in the present case. Non-appearance of the Corporation despite the court summon not only results in delay in disposal of cases and consequent denial of justice but also shows dis-respect to the court. I am constrained to say that the conduct of the Corporation is far from satisfactory. The Corporation has treated the case in a very callous manner and has shown scant regard for this Court. It will not he out of place to mention that in large number of cases in which the Corporation is a party, similar problem arises. Needless to say that there is no assistance given by the Corporation for proper dispensation of justice in the case.

(8) It is appropriate that the Commissioner inquires into the matter and takes steps to ensure that such a lapse does not occur in future.

(9) As per the counter-affidavit filed by D.E.S.U. the petitioners are denied electricity because of the inter se dispute between the D.E.S.U. and the Corporation. Undisputedly the construction of the building in question is as per the sanction plan and both the Completion and Occupancy Certificates have been granted to the petitioners by the Corporation. The D.E.S.U. is a wing of the Corporation itself and because the Corporation is not able to resolve the dispute with the D.E.S.U. the public country is being harassed and dragged to court. The D.E.S.U. has also not raised any other objection to the grant of 50 Kw of electricity load to the petitioners excepting the above-mentioned objection. Rather, the D.E.S.U. has admitted in the counter-affidavit that the commercial complex has been developed by the Corporation and in a meeting held on 9.11.89 in the chamber of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Commissioner was appraised of the position and a request has been received by the Chief Architect of the Corporation vide his letter dated 20.11.89.

(10) The Corporation has auctioned six commercial plots in this complex. Indaed, these plots must have been auctioned and plans sanctioned only after proper consideration of all the aspects of the matter regarding feasibility of having a commercial complex in this area. After people have spent crores of rupees towards auction money and construction of the building it is now not open to anybody to state that it is not feasible to electrify this area.

(11) In the circumstances,the prayer of the petitioners deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The Corporation is directed to take up the matter regarding electrification of the area forthwith and sort out the matter with the D.E.S.U. in order to ensure that the application of the petitioners is processed and the petitioners are informed of the necessary charges payable by them for permanent electricity load of 50 Kw within four weeks from today. The D.E.S.U. is directed to grant permanent electricity load of 50 KWs to the petitioners at plot no. 2 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi within four weeks of the petitioners paying the necessary charges. The petitioners will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 3000.00 to be shared equally by the Corporation and D.E.S.U.

(12) Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Along with the copy of the writ petition by the Registry of this Court without process fee. The Commissioner to report to this Court the action taken within four weeks.