Delhi High Court
Human Fundamental Rights ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 September, 2015
Author: Manmohan
#8
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6211/2012 & CM APPL. 16668/2012
HUMAN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ORS...... Petitioners
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh with Mr. Shimanshu
Bajpai and Ms. Nisha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Proxy Counsel
for Mr. Raman Duggal, Standing
Counsel (Civil), GNCTD for R-2&3.
Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Yoothica Pallavi,
Advocate for R-4/EDMC.
Mr. Anupam Varma with Ms. Nikhil
Sharma, Advocates for R-5/BSES.
Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhayani,
Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Mishra,
Advocate for PVVNL.
% Date of Decision : 17th September, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. On the oral prayer of Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for petitioners
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short "PVVNL") is
impleaded as respondent no. 9. Let an amended memo of parties be filed
within one week.
2. Issue notice to respondent no.9-PVVNL.
3. Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhayani, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent no. 9-PVVNL.
4. It is pertinent to mention that present writ petition has been filed
challenging the proposed action of the respondents to transfer the land and
houses/properties situated in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block to State
of Uttar Pradesh as well as to suspend disconnection of electricity of about
350 houses situated in the said area. It is the petitioners' case that East
Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block is a part of Delhi and cannot be
transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
5. On 28th September, 2012, this Court had restrained respondent-BSES
YPL from disconnecting the electricity supply of petitioners, subject to the
condition that electricity bills are paid on time and the petitioners do not
obstruct any officials of respondent-BSES YPL from performing their
duties. The rationale behind passing the said order was that petitioners, who
primarily belong to weaker section of the society would be put to irreparable
loss and inconvenience in case their electricity supplies are abruptly
disconnected specially in the absence of any assurance from the State of
Uttar Pradesh that electricity supply would be provided.
6. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
stated that petitioners are residents of Delhi and are entitled to electricity
supply from respondent-BSES YPL. He further states that PVVNL has no
infrastructure to supply electricity in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block
as well as other similarly situated colonies on the border of Uttar Pradesh.
7. Mr. Anupam Varma, learned counsel for respondent-BSES YPL has
drawn this Court's attention to the report of demarcation of Delhi and Uttar
Pradesh border by Total Station Method conducted jointly by officials of
Delhi and Uttar Pradesh governments in May and June 2012. He states that
respondent-BSES YPL is ready and willing to supply electricity connection
to all those petitioners whose properties have been found to be situated in
Delhi in accordance with the said demarcation report.
8. Mr. Varma submits that respondent-BSES YPL is prohibited in law
from supplying electricity in areas falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
9. Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhayani, learned counsel for respondent-PVVNL
states that residents whose properties are situated in the State of Uttar
Pradesh shall be supplied electricity by the PVVNL. He, however, admits
that as of today infrastructure for supply of electricity is not readily available
in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block as well as other similarly situated
colonies on the border of Uttar Pradesh.
10. Having heard learned counsel for parties this Court finds that there is
no dispute between the States of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as to which area
falls in which State. The said demarcation report has neither been
challenged nor can it be challenged in the present proceedings.
Consequently, the plea that petitioners' area falls in Delhi is rejected.
11. Moreover, from the aforesaid it is apparent that both the electricity
suppliers, namely, BSES YPL and PVVNL are ready to supply electricity to
the occupiers of the properties situated in their respective States. The
statement, assurance and undertaking given by the two counsel are accepted
by this Court and both respondents-BSES YPL and PVVNL are held bound
by the same.
12. However, as the counsel for respondent-PVVNL has stated that
infrastructure for supply of electricity is not readily available in the border
area falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court grants the State of Uttar
Pradesh and PVVNL six months time to set up the infrastructure and/or
negotiate with respondent-BSES YPL an agreement to supply electricity in
the concerned areas, subject to approval of both the state electricity
regulators.
13. In the meantime, to avoid any inconvenience to the petitioners, this
Court directs that the status quo prevalent as of today shall continue till
further orders.
14. Respondents-BSES YPL and PVVNL are directed to file a status
report with regard to availability of infrastructure as well as their capacity to
supply electricity in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block as well as other
similarly situated colonies on the border of Uttar Pradesh.
List on 17th March, 2016.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
rn
