Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Temporary Electricity Connections for 500 Families in Abandoned Zirakpur Housing Project
Residents of Sushma Valencia Apartments, stranded by an absconding developer, win interim relief as the High Court directs PSPCL to provide temporary electricity connections on payment of usual charges plus Rs. 20,000 per consumer.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth, sitting singly at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 5 June 2026 directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to provide temporary electricity connections to residents of Sushma Valencia Apartments in Zirakpur on payment of usual charges plus Rs. 20,000 per consumer. The order came on an application filed by the Sushma Valencia Apartment Owners Association, which represents more than 500 families living in a housing project whose developer — Suksha Developers Private Limited — has abandoned the site and whose directors are stated to be absconding. The court simultaneously directed a senior PSPCL officer to convene an inter-agency meeting with State authorities and GMADA to work out a lasting solution, with a report to be placed before the court on 19 June 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner association approached the court by way of a writ petition seeking a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 — the State of Punjab and PSPCL — to release electricity connections to the residents. The project in Zirakpur was developed under a builder’s licence granted to Suksha Developers Private Limited. The layout was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab. The builder’s licence, however, expired on 24 August 2023, and the directors of the company are stated to have abandoned the project and gone absconding.
Out of a total of 900 flats in the project, 700 dwelling units have already been constructed. Of these, 125 residential units are already receiving electricity supply from PSPCL. The remaining residents have been left without regular connections.
PSPCL had itself issued a circular dated 11 September 2023 stating that residents of abandoned projects and colonies may be issued electricity connections. The Superintending Engineer of PSPCL had also written to the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar Mohali, on 2 April 2026, seeking a declaration that Sushma Valencia is an abandoned project. The petitioner association followed up with a representation dated 11 May 2026 requesting release of individual electricity connections to residents.
PSPCL’s Demand and the Petitioner’s Objection
A Co-ordinate Bench of the court had earlier, by order dated 19 May 2026, directed PSPCL to consider the request of every resident who is ready and willing to deposit requisite charges, and had adjourned the matter to 15 July 2026. The petitioner association then filed the present application seeking immediate compliance of that order.
PSPCL filed a short reply with annexures on 5 June 2026. Counsel for PSPCL, Ms. Priyanka Malik, referred to a letter dated 22 May 2026 addressed to the petitioner association and submitted that PSPCL would provide electricity connections if the members paid Rs. 4,44,58,757/-, a figure that did not include a separate penalty liability of Rs. 43,55,463/-.
Counsel for the petitioner association contested this demand on two grounds. First, the legal liability to pay such charges rests with the developer and builder, not with the individual residents, and the developer is absconding. Second, even if each resident paid normal connection charges of approximately Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,000, the aggregate would fall far short of PSPCL’s demand. The court was also told that PSPCL had, in a similar case involving Sunny Enclave, Mohali, granted connections to residents where the promoters had failed to deposit requisite charges.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Vashisth framed the predicament in welfare-state terms. The court observed that citizens “cannot be left in lurch due to failure of the system/administration” and that in the scorching heat then prevailing, a large number of people — including small children, elderly persons, and women — could not be compelled to first fulfil all technical requirements before receiving regular electricity supply. The residents had invested their hard-earned money in the project with the expectation of a home.
The court placed responsibility squarely on the pattern of builder conduct: developers allure buyers with lucrative projects, collect crores of rupees, and then abscond, leaving investors to suffer without any fault on their part.
The court also pointed to a systemic gap. It observed that the State machinery had a duty to develop a mechanism — rules or regulations — at the time of issuing licences and permissions to builders, so that in situations such as this one, a clear path to relief for consumers would already exist. The absence of such a mechanism was itself a failure of the administration.
Given PSPCL’s own circular of 11 September 2023 permitting connections in abandoned projects, and the precedent of connections being granted at Sunny Enclave, the court found it appropriate to grant interim relief rather than leave residents without power while procedural questions were resolved.
Directions Issued
The court issued the following directions on 5 June 2026:
On payment of usual charges plus Rs. 20,000 per resident or consumer, PSPCL shall provide a temporary electricity connection to each such resident. This arrangement is expressly described as a stop-gap measure and will not confer any right on the members of the petitioner association to seek regularisation of the temporary connection into a permanent one. Consumers will remain liable to pay further charges as may be leviable based on actual electricity consumption.
The Superintending Engineer or any other senior responsible officer of PSPCL is directed to convene a meeting with the concerned State authorities, including GMADA, to sort out the issue. Representatives of the petitioner association may also be called to attend. The outcome of that meeting, including the decision or solution arrived at, is to be placed before the court.
The court also directed that a copy of the order be provided to counsel for the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh.