Dismissed

Rajendra Thacker v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2010PIL/113/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL where the petitioner claimed excessive tariff charges and alleged mismanagement by the respondents. The court held that the writ petition was personal in nature as the petitioner had switched distributors, and an order under the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; no substantive relief granted.

Rajendra Thacker Vs Maharashtra Electricity… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

PIL119.06

AJN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.113 OF 2009

¶7

Rajendra Thacker ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Ms. Sumedha Rao for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/b Tri Legal for respondent 3.

¶13

Ms. Anjali Chandorkar i/b Mulla & Mulla Craigie Blunt & Caroe for respondent 4.

¶14

CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & R.V. MORE, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

According to the petitioner, this petition is filed in

¶18

public interest. However, the grievance of the petitioner primarily appear to be personal in nature. Firstly, it was

¶19

urged that RInfra i.e. the 4^th respondent is charging excessive tariff from its consumers. The second grievance

PIL119.06

AJN

is that the 1^st respondent has not permitted the petitioner to change over from the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent. Admittedly, as of today, the petitioner has changed over to the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is no longer affected by the alleged excessive tariff charged by the 4^th respondent. A statement is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that personal grievance of the petitioner to that effect does not survive.

¶24

It is, however, contended that public interest is affected inasmuch as a newspaper report, copy of which is annexed to this petition at Ex-G indicates that respondent 1 – MERC has ordered a probe against respondent 4 to inquire into and ensure that expenses of other businesses have not been passed on by it to the consumers and also to ensure that the assets being reported under its regulated business are actually and physically existing and are being used for the benefit of the 4^th respondent's business. We must note that this statement is made on the basis of a newspaper report. No prayer is made on this count. This goes beyond

PIL119.06

AJN

the scope of the petition. Besides, we are unable to take cognizance of such newspaper report.

¶29

So far as the grievance about the order dated 15/10/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is concerned, since the said order can be challenged under Section 111 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the said grievance cannot be dealt in writ jurisdiction. In any case, as the petitioner has now changed over to the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the alleged excessive tariff of the 4^th respondent.

¶30

The petition is disposed of.

¶31

[MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

Rajendra Thacker v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Thacker v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Subhash Kakade Vs Dipti Ashok Chavdhari and Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinesh D. Parmar Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Mansoori Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nitin S.Deshpande and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

The Mumbai Medwaste Action Group Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Peopes Action Committee and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashatra and Ors.

Sandeep Parasmal Kothari Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Parasmal Chimanlal Kothari Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Changdev Dhondiba Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Avinash Ganpatrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimashankar Ishwara Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ambubai Laxman Madur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.