A commercial electricity connection alone does not establish eligibility for commercial rehabilitation premises.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 1 August 2015 by which the High Power Committee dismissed his challenge to the rejection of his claim for commercial eligibility under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

A 1976 Pitch Card recorded Hut No. 85/6 in the name of the petitioner’s brother for residential use. The petitioner claimed that he resided in Hut No. 478 and conducted a canteen business in Hut No. 55, for which he obtained a commercial electricity connection in 1992.

Annexure-II issued in 2000 recorded Hut No. 55 as a residential hutment and the petitioner’s wife as eligible for residential occupation.

The petitioner sought correction of the hut’s user from residential to commercial, relying principally on electricity bills and verification from the electricity company confirming a commercial connection in his name.

The Assistant Commissioner, Secretary of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, and High Power Committee rejected the claim.

The authorities found that the electricity bill established the existence of the hutment but did not, by itself, prove commercial use as required under the applicable Government Resolution.

The petitioner also alleged denial of natural justice, while the developer contended that the rehabilitation project had substantially progressed and that rehabilitation premises had been handed over to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

1. Whether a commercial electricity connection, by itself, was sufficient to establish that Hut No. 55 was being used for commercial purposes and entitled the petitioner to a commercial rehabilitation tenement under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

2. Whether the authorities erred in treating the hutment as residential despite the petitioner’s commercial electricity records and the separate existence of the two huts.

3. Whether the decision-making process was vitiated by breach of natural justice for want of an effective opportunity of hearing.

4. Whether the subsequent stage of implementation of the rehabilitation project affected the petitioner’s claim.

The Court applied Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 1991, and the Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015 governing documentary proof of eligibility under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

Under paragraph 1(a) of the Government Resolution, at least one prescribed document must establish the existence of the hutment on or before 1 January 2000.

Electricity records under Serial No. 2 may establish the existence of the hutment and the connection supplied to it, but do not conclusively establish its commercial or non-residential use.

Where commercial, professional, or industrial use is claimed, Serial No. 7 separately requires documents such as a Gumasta/agency permit, restaurant licence, or tax receipt, obtained on or before 1 January 2000 and identifying the hutment or its definite location.

Eligibility must be determined by considering the prescribed documents, relevant records, and spot inspection, rather than by relying on one document in isolation.

The Government Resolution also recognises that, once all rehabilitation buildings of the relevant scheme are completed, persons earlier declared ineligible may not be accommodated in those buildings.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s commercial electricity connection, verified by the electricity company, was relevant evidence showing that Hut No. 55 existed and that a commercial connection had been supplied to it.

However, the Court distinguished proof of the hutment’s existence from proof of its actual commercial use.

Since the Government Resolution separately prescribed documents under Serial No. 7 for establishing commercial or professional use, the electricity bill could not automatically confer entitlement to a commercial rehabilitation premises.

The municipal records described Hut No. 55 as residential, recorded residence of the occupant, and noted that the petitioner had produced no Gumasta licence, restaurant licence, tax receipt, telephone bill, or similar proof of commercial use; the income-tax returns also described the premises as residential.

The separate depiction of the two huts and their separate electricity connections could establish that they existed separately, but did not prove that Hut No. 55 was commercially used.

The Court further held that the electricity bill had not been ignored: it had been sent for verification and considered at multiple administrative stages.

Consequently, even assuming that the hearing opportunity was inadequate, a remand could not convert insufficient evidence into proof of commercial eligibility.

The subsequent progress of the rehabilitation project did not independently extinguish a proven right, but it reinforced the relevance of the project’s completed or substantially implemented status where eligibility had not been established.

A commercial electricity connection was relevant but insufficient by itself to prove commercial use under the Government Resolution.

The High Power Committee’s order dated 1 August 2015 was upheld, the writ petition was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs.