Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Association Phase-Ii (Regd.) vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution LTD. & Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Association Phase-II (Regd.), filed a writ petition seeking directions for Respondent No. 1 (Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. - TPDDL) to install a Package Sub Station and provide electricity connections in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Phase-II, and for Respondent No. 2 (MCD) to coordinate this effort. The Court was informed that MCD had approved a budget of Rs. 8,52,46,809/- for TPDDL for electrification. A joint inspection was conducted, and possession of four sites for sub-stations was handed over. TPDDL requested GST undertaking and details from MCD, which MCD assured to provide within 15 days. Upon receipt of these details, TPDDL committed to completing the electrification work within 12 months.

Held

The Court noted the joint submissions by MCD and TPDDL regarding the progress made. MCD had approved a budget of Rs. 8,52,46,809/- for TPDDL, and possession of four sites for sub-stations had been handed over. TPDDL had communicated a request for GST undertaking and details to MCD, which MCD assured to provide within 15 days. Upon receipt of these details, TPDDL committed to completing the electrification work within 12 months, in accordance with Regulation 11(4)(iii)(e)(ii) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017. Consequently, the Court found no further orders necessary at that stage, other than directing MCD to furnish the requested details to TPDDL. TPDDL was directed to commence and conclude the work within 12 months from the date of receiving the information. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue further legal remedies if any grievance persisted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 1 (TPDDL) to install a Package Sub Station in the vicinity of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Phase-II to provide electricity connections to land allottees, and direct Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (MCD) to coordinate for this purpose, as per the Petitioner's prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought directions for the installation of a sub-station and provision of electricity connections. Revenue/State's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment focuses on the progress made by the respondents based on the Court's previous orders and joint efforts.