The Delhi High Court has held that power distribution companies cannot be prevented from supplying electricity to properties merely because they have been “booked” by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for unauthorised construction, unless the MCD has taken concrete steps to seal or demolish those premises. The Court’s decision came in a case where BSES Yamuna Power Limited challenged a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum order that had directed it to grant electricity to premises flagged for illegal construction.
In its judgment, the Court observed that it does not find any legal obstacle preventing the power company from providing or continuing electricity connections in properties that are allegedly unauthorised. However, the Court clarified that this position changes once the MCD initiates coercive action: if a property is being sealed or demolished, the MCD must notify the electricity company, which can then lawfully disconnect power.
The Court pointed out several scenarios where properties remain “booked” by the MCD yet no sealing or demolition has been carried out. These include situations where occupants have obtained interim stay orders, where regularisation applications are pending, or where inspections are delayed because of procedural defects such as non-service of show-cause notices. There are also cases in which coercive action is hindered by a lack of police assistance or resistance from local residents. In such cases, the Court said, it is not justifiable to deny electricity connections to the occupants.
The bench further remarked that denying power often pushes occupants toward illicit means of obtaining electricity, which significantly increases the risk of theft and can create serious public safety risks. By granting electricity access, the Court hopes to discourage such unauthorised practices and align policy with safety.
The Court directed that whenever the MCD takes formal steps of demolition or sealing, it must formally inform the relevant electricity companies so that disconnection can follow. This ensures a coordinated mechanism between civic authorities and power providers, which respects both regulatory goals and public interest.
This ruling marks a strong reaffirmation of citizens’ right to essential services, even when administrative action against construction is pending. It also underlines the Court’s concern for the practical hardships and safety risks that arise when utilities are denied during protracted legal or bureaucratic disputes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.