RANA PARTAP SETIA Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 26.5.1998, passed by the District Forum whereby his complaint seeking direction to the respondent for energisation of commercial light electricity connection was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000 for not energising the connection upto 31.3.1996 is that though he had taken the plea that the MPL licence of the appellants renewed by the MCD after 31.3.1996 but he could not produce the original sanction given by the MCD in this regard and on this account alone his complaint for energisation of the electricity connection was dismissed.

(2.) SINCE the appellant has now produced the copy of the renewed licence and on the other hand the Counsel for the respondent contends that the electricity connection was not energised because there was a policy of Government not to give commercial connection in the areas which were declared as residential area, this policy still survives. Mere issuance of licence by the MCD to run commercial activities did not compel or cast obligation upon the respondent to give electricity connection. Considerations for issuing MPL licence by the MCD are on different premise altogether whereas the policy of not giving commercial licence to the industries being run in the residential area is altogether on different footing.

(3.) SIMILARLY , mere issuance of K -Number by the MCD did not entitle the appellant to seek commercial electricity connection. It is made clear that if the appellant comes out with the fact that there is no such policy or decision taken by the Government as pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent, the respondent may energise the electricity connection.