LAXMI DEVI Vs. NDPL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/NDPL to grant her a new permanent electricity connection on the third floor of premises bearing No. 1820-A, Rani Bagh, Shakurbasti, New Delhi, owned by the petitioner, as granted to the resident of the first floor of the same building on 29.7.2010, without insisting on her paying any amount on a pro-rota basis in terms of the intimation letter dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure-D). Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had purchased the third floor of the subject premises measuring 35 sq. yards, by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.8.2008. One month before the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the first floor of the subject premises was purchased by one Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal, vide Registered Sale Deed dated 18.7.2008. On 27.7.2010, upon the owner of the first floor of the subject premises applying to the respondent/NDPL for grant of a permanent electricity connection, the respondent/NDPL granted him the same without insisting that he pay any dues with respect to the electricity charges against the earlier electricity connection energizing at the said premises. However, when the petitioner approached the respondent/NDPL for grant of a new electricity connection in respect of the third floor of the premises, respondent/NDPL issued her a letter dated 20.12.2010 informing her that the department had come across outstanding dues in respect of the subject premises to the tune of Rs. 14,20,559/- and her application for grant of a new permanent electricity connection could be considered only if she would clear the dues on a pro-rata basis. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent/NDPL, the present petition was filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2010.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the arrears of electricity dues claimed by the respondent/NDPL are in respect of a single storeyed structure built in the subject premises as it earlier existed whereas, a separate structure was raised later on in the year 2006 on a portion of the same plot. He states that that the entire plot in question in respect of property bearing No. 1820-A, Rani Bagh, Shakurbasti, New Delhi measures 135 sq. yards, on which there had earlier existed only a single storeyed structure on land measuring 100 sq. yards. However, the structure on which the third floor was purchased by the petitioner was built in the year 2008 on the remaining area measuring 35 sq. yards from out of the total of 135 sq. yards and that the disputed amount in question relates to the permanent electricity connection granted to the earlier built-up structure on 100 sq. yards, which the petitioner is not liable to pay. It is further asserted that the respondent/NDPL has discriminated against the petitioner inasmuch as while refusing to grant her a permanent electricity connection on the ground that there were arrears existing in respect of the subject premises, a fresh electricity connection was granted in respect of the first floor of the same property without demanding any such arrears on a pro-rata basis from the owner of the said floor.

(3.) Notice was issued on the present writ petition on 11.1.2011. On 10.2.2011, it was observed that as per the provisions of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986, whereunder, independent status has been conferred on apartments within the meaning of the said Act, in respect of a property that has four or more apartments, merely because there were dues with respect to the earlier existing single storeyed structure in the subject premises and over a period of time, separate floors had been added to the property, the purchasers of the said floors, which are new construction, could not be saddled with the old dues. It was also noticed that the respondent/NDPL had filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the accused in the theft case, lodged by the respondent/NDPL where Rs. 9,86,544/- was claimed as civil dues, had been acquitted and the said order had attained finality. In view of the above, counsel for the respondent/NDPL was directed to address arguments on the aspect as to whether after the said acquittal, the civil claim for the said dues would survive for seeking recovery thereof from the petitioner on a pro-rata basis.