By IndiaHub 
This judgement came in reponse to an appeal against a directive from the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) which directed BSES Yamuna to grant electricity connections to properties marked as unauthorised construction.
Delhi High Court analysis of law and facts of case
In its ruling (2025: DHC: 10086) on November 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court noted that the MCD’s lawyer told the court that those properties had already been booked for unauthorized construction.
On the other hand, the homeowners’ lawyer argued that while their properties have indeed been booked for unauthorized constructionthe MCD is yet to take any action against them. Currently, these properties are occupied.
The Delhi High Court ackowledged the CGRF order dated January 3, 2023. The Delhi High Court said that upon reviewing the CGRF order, it indicates that the CGRF has mandated the provision of electricity connections, considering that even though the property is recorded as unauthorized construction, no action has been taken even three years since the demolition order was issued.
Shivam Kunal, Advocate, Delhi High Court, said to ET Wealth Online: “The High Court upheld CGRF directions and held that BSES cannot deny or discontinue electricity solely because a property is “booked” for unauthorised construction; supply may continue until MCD actually undertakes coercive action such as sealing or demolition.”
According to Kunal, the writ petitions were dismissed, with practice directions clarifying that discoms must disconnect only upon MCD’s specific intimation at the stage of action, and that such supply will not be treated as a breach of BSES’s own circulars.
Kunal says that the homeowners effectively succeeded because mere booking/demolition orders, without followthrough, cannot justify deprivation of an essential service, particularly when premises are occupied, regularisation/appeals or statutory protection under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 is in play, and nonsupply encourages electricity theft and publicsafety risks.
Delhi High Court analyses various practical scenarios with unauthorised constructed properties
Delhi High Court said that they have taken note of the various cases where even though demolition orders have been passed, no requisite action has been taken by the MCD against the unauthorized constructions due to various reasons.
Delhi High Court said: “It is to be noted that even though demolition orders are passed by the MCD against the properties thereby booking the properties, however, on account of various ensuing factors, it is not possible for the MCD to take action against such unauthorized constructions immediately.”
The Delhi High Court said that there are instances when the owners/occupiers of the properties approach the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD), by filing appeals challenging the demolition/sealing orders passed by the MCD.
In many such instances, the ATMCD grants stay against the demolition/sealing orders and the said appeals continue to be pending before the ATMCD.
Delhi High Court said: “In such circumstances, even though demolition orders stand passed against the properties and the properties stand booked for unauthorized construction, the MCD is unable to take action against such unauthorized constructions.”
The Delhi High Court noted that many properties flagged for unauthorised construction are simultaneously under review for regularisation. Since these applications often take a long time to process due to multiple administrative factors, delays are common as MCD examines whether such constructions can be legally regularised.
Delhi High Court said: “The respective parties at times, take considerable time to deposit requisite documents before the MCD. Further, right of personal hearing is also sought before the MCD, on account of which, it is not possible for the MCD to expeditiously dispose of such regularization applications.”
The High Court said that there are cases, where regularization applications are pending before the MCD, sometimes on their own account, and sometimes on account of the orders passed by the courts, and in such cases no coercive actions are taken by the MCD during the pendency of the regularization applications before it.[1.1]
Delhi High Court further said that they have also come across cases where despite demolition orders having been passed, the unauthorized construction , in full or in part, is protected by the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011.
Delhi High Court said: “It is to be noted that the said Act (NCT laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011) continues to be in operation and is in force till 31st December, 2026. Thus, in such cases, even though the respective properties are booked for unauthorized construction by the MCD, no action can be taken by the MCD, on account of operation of law.”
The court also noted that in some cases, where properties have been labeled as unauthorized construction, due to procedural lapses like non-service of the Show Cause Notices, etc., the matters are remanded back to the MCD for considering afresh and passing fresh orders.
Delhi High Court says: “Thus, in such circumstances also, though the property may have been booked for unauthorized construction, on account of procedural lapses, the MCD follows the due procedure, as per directions of the various courts.”
The Delhi High Court said that there have also been cases where the MCD despite being ready to take action against the unauthorized construction, has failed to do so on account of non-availability of police force or due to stiff resistance from the general public. In such cases, the MCD is forced to defer its action against such properties.
Accordingly, it is clear that despite booking unauthorized construction, the MCD is not always in a position to take time-bound action on account of various factors.
Delhi High Court said: “Thus, there are cases and instances where the action against unauthorized construction is not taken by MCD for a prolonged period of time.”
The court said that they have noted one such instance, which was also noted by the CGRF in the disouted order in W.P.(C) 7618/2023. The CGRF noted that even after three years, MCD failed to take action against the unauthorized construction.
Delhi High Court said: “Thus, in such circumstances, where properties remain occupied by various residents, this court finds no error in the direction of the CGRF to grant electricity connection in the meanwhile, pending action against such unauthorized construction.”
The Delhi High Court said that they cannot be oblivious to the fact that when properties are occupied and no electricity connection is granted, there may be unauthorised use of electricity.
Delhi High Court said: “In such cases, the unauthorized use of electricity leads to cases of electricity theft, which ought to be curtailed.”
The Delhi High Court said that they have also noted that where electricity connections are not provided on account of various reasons, and the said properties are occupied, any instance of electricity theft and unauthorized use of electricity, would lead to unwarranted and avoidable threat to public safety.
Delhi High Court judgement
The Delhi High Court said that, considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, they are of the view that there is no impediment for the petitioner company (BSES Yamuna) to grant or continue with electricity connection in the premises, where such premises are booked for unauthorized construction.
Delhi High Court said: “However, as and when MCD takes any coercive action against such properties, which are booked for unauthorized construction, the MCD shall duly intimate the concerned electricity companies, in that regard.”
The Delhi High Court clarified that the electricity company (BSES Yamuna) shall be free to disconnect the electricity connection, as and when such request or direction is given by the MCD, at the time of taking action against the unauthorized construction in the properties in question.
Delhi High Court said: “Accordingly, at the time of any demolition or sealing action being undertaken by the MCD, the electricity company shall duly follow the directions of the MCD, and disconnect the electricity at that point of time.”
The Delhi High Court further clarified that grant of fresh electricity connection or continuation of electricity connection in properties, which already stand booked for unauthorized construction, or are subsequently so booked for unauthorised construction, shall not be construed by the MCD as violation of the circulars in that regard, which are issued by the respective electricity companies.
The Delhi High Court also said that the aforesaid practice directions shall be followed by the respective parties, so that requisite action for disconnection of electricity is taken by the electricity companies, pursuant to intimation by the MCD, at the time when actual action is taken by the MCD, for either sealing or demolition of such premises on account of unauthorised construction/ encroachment/excess coverage.
Judgement:
- Accordingly, it is directed that the electricity companies/Distribution Companies (“DISCOMS”), shall fully cooperate with the MCD and take requisite action for disconnection of the electricity, at the time when MCD is taking action against unauthorized construction/encroachment/excess coverage, for sealing or demolition of the said properties.
- The present writ petitions, along with the pending applications, are disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid directions.
Harsh Khabar, Advocate, Delhi High Court, said that the Delhi High Court decided BSES Yamuna’s writ petition against a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) order mandating continued electricity supply to residents of properties declared unauthorised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
According to Khabar, the high court held that the CGRF Order is maintainable as many of these properties are still standing because of undecided appeals against demolition before the Appellate Tribunal MCD, undecided regularisation requests by owners, the protection provided under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 (till 31st December 2026) and with incomplete service of show cause notices. The court feared that cutting supply could prompt electricity theft.
According to Khabar, this judgment strikes balance between the needs of the persons dwelling in such unauthorised properties till such property is lawfully demolished, while keeping in mind the fear of such people using stolen electricity. It paves way for such people enjoying rightful facilities until a decision is made by the authorities regarding the lawful action taken towards their properties.