Power Official’s Fake Claim Over Gurugram Site Sparks Court Battle

When the paperwork says a building is already lit, you’d expect wires humming in the walls. In Gurugram, however, a senior official at the state electricity board claimed exactly that – that power was feeding a bustling construction site – even though, according to on‑site engineers, no such supply existed.

The discrepancy landed on the desk of the Punjab and Haryana High Court after the project’s developers filed a petition, accusing the officer of deliberately filing a false submission. Their contention? The alleged electricity connection was nothing more than a “paper phantom,” created perhaps to smooth over bureaucratic hurdles or to mask a pending payment.

During the hearing, the bench pressed the official for concrete proof – meter readings, supply logs, the usual technical breadcrumbs that confirm a live connection. The officer, caught off‑guard, could not produce any of the usual documentation. Instead, he offered a vague statement that the supply was “in the process of being sanctioned,” a claim that does little to satisfy a court looking for facts.

Legal experts say this isn’t just a clerical slip; it could amount to fraud if the false claim was used to obtain approvals, financial benefits, or to evade penalties. “When an official misrepresents a utility supply, it not only undermines the credibility of the department but also jeopardises the safety and financial planning of the developers,” notes senior counsel Ravi Sharma.

The developers, for their part, argue that the bogus claim delayed their project timeline, inflating costs and causing unnecessary stress. They’re seeking not only a clarification from the electricity board but also compensation for the losses incurred during the bureaucratic maze.

In response, the electricity board has promised an internal inquiry. A senior officer said, “We will investigate the matter thoroughly and take appropriate disciplinary action if any misconduct is uncovered.” The board, however, did not comment on whether any criminal complaint would be lodged.

The High Court, meanwhile, has ordered the board to submit a detailed report within three weeks, covering the chain of communication that led to the false submission and any steps taken to rectify the error. The judge warned that continued delays could attract contempt proceedings.

While the case is still unfolding, it serves as a reminder that even routine administrative entries can have far‑reaching consequences when they’re not anchored in reality. For the construction sector in Gurugram, where projects race against time and budgets, transparency in utilities is more than a procedural nicety – it’s a cornerstone of trust.