Dismissed

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. v. Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2013PIL/44/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Public Interest Litigation No. 44 of 2012, the Bench considered grievances regarding disconnect of agriculturist electricity connections, alleged discrimination in supply hours, and defeat of subsidy purpose due to load-shedding, ultimately directing parties to approach the Regulatory Authority and disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Null and void of substance

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

PIL.44.2012.2.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 44 OF 2012

¶4

THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHAK HITWARDHAK SANGHATANA AND ORS. : PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. : RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. Ajay Talhar, i/b. Ms. Latika Belindage Angir, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent State.

¶7

Mr. Abhishek Mitra, Mr. Rahul Sinha and Mr. Varun Saraf, i/b. M/s. DSK Legal, for Respondent No. 5.

¶8

CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATED :- FEBRUARY 08, 2013

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

We have heard Counsel for the Petitioners as well as

¶11

the Respondents.

¶12

Pursuant to order dated 30^th January, 2013, the Chief

¶13

Engineer (Commercial) of Respondent No. 5 Company has filed affidavit, sworn on 7^th February, 2013. With regard to principal

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶16

PIL.44.2012.2.doc

¶17

grievance of the Petitioners that the agriculturist consumers' electricity connection was being disconnected due to non payment of subsidy amount by the State Government to the Respondent No. 5 Company, has been categorically denied in this affidavit. The affidavit further discloses the pattern of preparing the bills. It is noted that the subsidy amount is the difference between the tariff and the concessional rate. That is paid directly by the Government to Respondent No. 5 Company, by way of compensation. Thus understood, there is no substance in the grievance that the electricity connections of the agriculturist consumers are disconnected on account of non payment of subsidy amount by the State Government.

¶18

The second contention urged before us is with regard to averments made in Paragraph 4.23 about discrimination. The argument proceeds that the electricity is supplied only for eight hours in the Rural areas, whereas, in Urban areas, the industry gets electricity for 20 hours. This argument does not commend to us, as it clearly overlooks that the Respondent No. 5 Company is obliged to comply with the directions of the Regulatory Authority,

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶21

PIL.44.2012.2.doc

¶22

both regarding tariff as well as loadshedding. If the Petitioners have any grievance in that behalf, are free to make representation to the Regulatory Authority. Accordingly, the grievance about discrimination deserves to be stated to be rejected.

¶23

The third contention urged before us is that the purpose underlying for grant of subsidy is completely defeated by loadshedding and supply of electricity only for eight hours in a day. Once again, this is indirect way of questioning the decision of the Regulatory Authority regarding the tariff and the pattern of loadshedding. We are not inclined to examine that grievance in the present proceedings. The Petitioners are free to approach the Regulatory Authority, if so advised.

¶24

As no other point is argued before us, the Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(K.K.TATED,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

J.V.Salunke,PA

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. v. Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. v. Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan R. Mulye S/O Ramkrishna Muley Vs 1. the High Court at Bombay

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Forum for Fairness in Education and Anr. Vs Jessy Jose and Ors.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar, Vs the Commissioner and Ors.

Baner Citizen'S Forum Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sanjay Ramrao Parlikar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prasad B. Hiray Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidhayak Sansad, a Public Charity Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhakar Ramchandra Paricharak Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Minister, Co-Operation and Ors.

Nathaji Chandrakant Mohite and Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Indapur and Ors.

Narayan R. Mulye S/O Ramkrishna Muley Vs 1. the High Court at Bombay

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Avinash Tukaram Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Manisha Dilip Apturkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.