The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the area and the obligation of electricity suppliers to provide electricity to the occupiers of the properties situated in their respective States.

Manmohan, J.

1. On the oral prayer of Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for petitioners Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short PVVNL) is impleaded as respondent No. 9. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week.

2. Issue notice to respondent No. 9–PVVNL.

3. Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhayani, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 9-PVVNL.

4. It is pertinent to mention that present writ petition has been filed challenging the proposed action of the respondents to transfer the land and houses/properties situated in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block to State of Uttar Pradesh as well as to suspend disconnection of electricity of about 350 houses situated in the said area. It is the petitioners’ case that East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block is a part of Delhi and cannot be transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. On 28th September, 2012, this Court had restrained respondent-BSES YPL from disconnecting the electricity supply of petitioners, subject to the condition that electricity bills are paid on time and the petitioners do not obstruct any officials of respondent-BSES YPL from performing their duties. The rationale behind passing the said order was that petitioners, who primarily belong to weaker section of the society would be put to irreparable loss and inconvenience in case their electricity supplies are abruptly disconnected specially in the absence of any assurance from the State of Uttar Pradesh that electricity supply would be provided.

6. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently stated that petitioners are residents of Delhi and are entitled to electricity supply from respondent-BSES YPL. He further states that PVVNL has no infrastructure to supply electricity in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block as well as other similarly situated colonies on the border of Uttar Pradesh.

7. Mr. Anupam Varma, learned counsel for respondent-BSES YPL has drawn this Court’s attention to the report of demarcation of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh border by Total Station Method conducted jointly by officials of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh governments in May and June 2012. He states that respondent-BSES YPL is ready and willing to supply electricity connection to all those petitioners whose properties have been found to be situated in Delhi in accordance with the said demarcation report.

8. Mr. Varma submits that respondent-BSES YPL is prohibited in law from supplying electricity in areas falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

9. Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhayani, learned counsel for respondent-PVVNL states that residents whose properties are situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be supplied electricity by the PVVNL. He, however, admits that as of today infrastructure for supply of electricity is not readily available in East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, A-Block as well as other similarly situated colonies on the border of Uttar Pradesh.

10. Having heard learned counsel for parties this Court finds that there is no dispute between the States of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as to which area falls in which State. The said demarcation report has neither been challenged nor can it be challenged in the present proceedings. Consequently, the plea that petitioners’ area falls in Delhi is rejected.

11. Moreover, from the aforesaid it is apparent that both the electricity suppliers, namely, BSES YPL and PVVNL are ready to supply electricity to the occupiers of the properties situated in their respective States. The statement, assurance and undertaking given by the two counsel are accepted by this Court and both respondents-BSES YPL and PVVNL are held bound by the same.

12. However, as the counsel for respondent-PVVNL has stated that infrastructure for supply of electricity is not readily available in the border area falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court grants the State of Uttar Pradesh and PVVNL six months time to set up the infrastructure and/or negotiate with respondent-BSES YPL an agreement to sup