Delhi High Court
Jagmohan Singh vs Kuljeet Kaur & Ors on 26 September, 2018
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 26.09.2018
+ LPA 551/2018
JAGMOHAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Adv.
versus
KULJEET KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kiran Singh, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Kaustubh Anshuraj, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Sunil Fernandes with Mr. Arnav
Vidyarthi, Advs. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
RAJENDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 39638/2018 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA No.551/2018 & CM APPL. 39639/2018 (Stay)
1. Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned writ Court on
18.09.2018 in W.P.(C) 4473/2017, granting electricity connection to the
respondent in the premises in question, this appeal has been filed under
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. Respondent, Kuljeet Kaur, filed the writ petition with the following
two prayers:
"(i) Set-aside the impugned Order dated 18.09.2018 passed
by the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4473 of 2017
titled as "Kuljeet Kaur Vs. State & Others";
(ii) Dismiss the Writ petition (Civil) No.4473 of 2017 titled
as "Kuljeet Kaur Vs. State & Others"."
3. With regard to the property in question, i.e. 27/6, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi, it seems that various litigations are pending between the parties.
However, finding that mere grant of electricity connection to the respondent
will not prejudice the right or interest of the petitioner/appellant with regard
to the property in question, the learned writ Court allowed the prayer and
from para 7 onwards of the impugned order dealt with the issue in the
following manner:
"7. Without examining the aforesaid controversy, this Court
had pointedly asked from the learned counsel for respondent
no.4 as to what possible objection could respondent no.4 have
for the petitioner to avail a new connection on her own costs?
He stated that the same was being done by the petitioner to
create rights in the property in question where none existed. He
also submitted that respondent no.4 apprehends that any order
passed by this Court directing provision of the electricity
connection to the petitioner would give an impression that this
Court has accepted her right in the property.
8. The issues before this Court are very limited.
Undisputedly, the occupant of a premises would have the right
to avail service of the essential utilities. The petitioner is
desirous of obtaining a separate electricity connection on her
costs and this Court finds no reason why that should not be
provided. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2
(BSES) also submits that BSES would have no objection in
providing an electricity connection provided the petitioner
comply with all commercial formalities and, further, undertakes
to pay the security charges as well as the electricity
consumption charges on a regular basis.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
BSES is directed to provide an electricity connection to the
petitioner on the second floor of the premises in question. The
petitioner shall deposit the security charges as well as pay the
regular consumption charges to BSES.
10. It is clarified that provision of such electricity connection
would not be construed as creating any right/interest
whatsoever in respect of the property in question, in favour of
the petitioner. It is also further, clarified that nothing stated in
this order would preclude either parties from agitating their
claims of right, title or interest in the property in question."
4. From the aforesaid it is clear that the apprehension of the appellant to
the effect that by granting electricity connection to the respondent in her
name, the right of the petitioner to the property would be adversely affected
or it would be construed as a right or interest in the property being created in
favour of respondent, Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, has been taken care of by the
learned writ Court as is evident from para 10 of the impugned order and the
learned Court having exercised its discretion in accordance with law and
having protected the right of the appellant in the pending and ongoing
dispute pertaining to the property we see no reason to make any indulgence
into the matter.
5. Accordingly, the appeal along with the pending application stands
dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018/ns
