While issuing a set of practice directions, the Delhi High Court has held that BSES Yamuna Power Limited can grant or continue with an electricity connection in the premises booked for unauthorised construction. The High Court further added that electricity companies must proceed with the disconnection of the electricity at the time when MCD is taking action against such properties.

The writ petitions before the High Court were filed against the directions passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) directing the petitioner BSES Yamuna Power Limited to grant electricity connections to premises that were booked for unauthorised construction.

The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held, “Thus, considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment with the petitioner company to grant or continue with electricity connection in the premises, where such premises are booked for unauthorized construction. However, as and when MCD takes any coercive action against such properties, which are booked for unauthorized construction, the MCD shall duly intimate the concerned electricity companies, in that regard.”

“Accordingly, it is directed that the electricity companies/Distribution Companies (“DISCOMS”), shall fully cooperate with the MCD and take requisite action for disconnection of the electricity, at the time when MCD is taking action against unauthorized construction/encroachment/excess coverage, for sealing or demolition of the said properties”, it added.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kshitiz Mahipal represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the CGRF issued directions for the grant of electricity connection in the properties where unauthorised construction exists. As per the Petitioners, the directions would violate the various circulars issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited, wherein it has been stated that no electricity connection would be granted in any premises where unauthorized construction exists.

The private parties argued that though their respective properties had been booked for unauthorised construction, however, no action had been taken by the MCD.

Reasoning

Referring to the order passed by the CGRF, the Bench noted that the Forum had directed the grant of electricity connection after considering that, though the property in question stood booked for unauthorized construction, however, no action against the said property had been taken even after expiry of more than three years post issuance of the Demolition Order.

“This Court has also come across various instances wherein, though demolition orders have been passed, however, the unauthorized construction in the property, in full or in part thereof, is protected by the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011. It is to be noted that the said Act continues to be in operation and is in force till 31st December, 2026. Thus, in such cases, even though the respective properties are booked for unauthorized construction by the MCD, no action can be taken by the MCD, on account of operation of law”, the order read.

Illustrating various instances where the action against unauthorised construction is not taken by MCD for a prolonged period of time, the Bench concluded that wherever unauthorized construction is booked by the MCD, the MCD is not always in a position to take time-bound action against such unauthorised construction on account of various factors. The case at hand was such an instance where, despite the passing of about three years, action against the unauthorised construction was not taken by the MCD. “Thus, in such circumstances, where properties remain occupied by various residents, this Court finds no error in the direction of the CGRF to grant electricity connection in the meanwhile, pending action against such unauthorized construction”, it stated.

The Bench thus ordered, “Accordingly, at the time of any demolition or sealing action being undertaken by the MCD, the electricity company shall duly follow the directions of the MCD, and disconnect the electricity at that point of time.” It was further clarified that the grant of fresh electricity connection or continuation of electricity connection in properties, which already stand booked for unauthorized construction, or are subsequently so booked for unauthorised construction, shall not be construed by the MCD as a violation of the circulars in that regard, which are issued by the respective electricity companies.

The Bench ordered that the practice directions should be followed by the respective parties, so that requisite action for disconnection of electricity can be taken by the electricity companies, pursuant to intimation by the MCD, at the time when actual action is taken by the MCD, for either sealing or demolition of such premises on account of unauthorised construction/encroachment/excess coverage.

Cause Title: BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Bhagwanti (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10086)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Advocates Anupam Varma, Nikhil Sharma, Simran Kohli, Varun Chandhiok, Riya

Respondent: Advocates Kshitiz Mahipal, Khairun Nisa, Anirudh Dusaj, Vikrant N. Goyal, Piyush Wadhwa, Harsh Kumar Singh, Kunal Dixit

Click here to read/download Order




Delhi High CourtJustice Mini Pushkarna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.