JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, making the following prayers:-

“a) Issue writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus/certiorari and other order of the like nature, Quashing/Setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (received on 29.11.2013) issued by Respondent No.1 and all other proceedings and actions taken or proposed to be taken by the Respondent no.1 or any other person or body claiming by or through it;

b) Issue writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus/certiorari or other order of the like nature to the Respondent no.1 to take the requisite action to regularize the Collection cum Bill Collection Centre at Badarpur, Mathura Road, New Delhi and;

c) Alternatively, Issue writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus/certiorari or other order of the like nature to the Respondent no.2 to allot alternate plot/place for shifting the said complaint centre and”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 19.11.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the building situated at Badarpur, Mathura Road, New Delhi as being unauthorised, illegal and an encroachment on a public road - old Mathura Road. The said building houses the complaint-cum-bill collection centre of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner states that the assets belonging to the unbundled Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) within the licence area of the petitioner (i.e. South and South-West Delhi) stood transferred to the petitioner for its use in terms of the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. The building in question was also one of the assets which was being used by the erstwhile DVB on the date of the transfer and, therefore, the petitioner was vested with the building in question “on right to use basis” along with other assets of the erstwhile DVB. The ownership of the said building and the land continued to vest with the Government of NCT of Delhi and the petitioner being a licencee for distribution of electricity was granted the right to use the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that around one million consumers are being serviced from the building in question and it would not be in public interest to demolish the same without providing the petitioner with an alternate land or building. The petitioner further contends that the demarcation report was not supplied to the petitioner. It is contended that the structure in question was built over three decades ago and it must be presumed that the same was in accordance with law.

5. The principal controversy involved in the present petition is whether the building in question which is currently occupied by the petitioner is unauthorised and encroaches upon a public road at village Badarpur, New Delhi. And, whether the petitioner has a right to regularisation of the said building or in the alternative to be provided an alternative site.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that a complaint had been made before the Lokayukta, Delhi alleging that there were encroachments on the old Mathura Road at village Badarpur and that the respondents were not taking any action for removing the same. Subsequently, an exercise of demarcation was carried out which confirmed that there were encroachments on both sides of the road in question. Show cause notices were issued to the encroachers calling upon them to show cause why demolition action not be taken with respect to the buildings encroaching upon the said public road. Since the complaint-cum-bill collection centre occupied by the petitioner was also found to be an encroachment on the road, a show cause notice dated 08.02.2012 was issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, another show cause notice dated

23.11.2012 was also issued to the petitioner.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 7737/2012, inter alia, praying for quashing of th