The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice for alleged tampered meter usage after the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the petition upon depositing 50% of the claimed amount.
Petition disposed of as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.1422/2010
1
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 2010
Mangireesh Prem Co.Op. Soc. Ltd. ..Petitioners.
Versus
The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And Transport Undertaking BEST & Anr.
..Respondents.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2010.
P.C.
What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the notice dated 15.3.2010 (Exhibit-A) issued by the Divisional Engineer, (B.E.S.T)(E.S.), Dept. of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport, informing the petitioner that the case is registered for using of tampered meter under the provision of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and that tampered meter is confiscated. The said notice further states that the provisional civil liability (vigilance claim) of the undertaking due to the use of electricity through tampered meter is estimated to be Rs.4,08,221/-,and the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid amount.
WP.1422/2010
2
2] The impugned show cause notice is issued by the respondents and petitioner ha been given an opportunity to submit reply to the same, and in fact petitioner has already submitted reply on 5.5.2010. Further, in case if any order adverse to the petitioner is passed, petitioner will have further remedy of filing an appeal under section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, this petition is not required to be entertained at this stage.
3] Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already deposited 50% of the amount claimed in the notice. He, therefore, seeks to withdraw the petition after stating that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the amount claimed in the notice.
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangireesh Prem Co.Op. Soc. Ltd.
The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And Transport Undertaking BEST & Anr.
MOHIT S. SHAH
SC DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
