Allowed

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through Superintending Engineer v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Corporation and Textile and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2013WP/6603/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, noting repeated non-compliance by the Government with directions to expedite a revision, granted the petitioner leave to implead a liquidator as a party defendant in a pending civil suit. The court prescribed strict timelines for amendment, service, hearing, and final disposal of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to implead the Liquidator as a Party Defendant; suit adjourned until amendment; hearing expedited to be decided within six months.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

918.wp.6603.2013.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6603 OF 2013

¶5

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through Superintending Engineer & Ors. ... Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra through the Department of Corporation & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Prashant Chavan with Mr.Nirav Shah & Ms.Reshma i/b Little & Co. for Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JULY 25, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking two fold directions.

¶16

Firstly, seeking a direction directing Respondent No.1 to forthwith

¶17

decide the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner challenging

¶18

the order dated 13.02.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 refusing

1 / 5

Shraddha Talekar PA

918.wp.6603.2013.doc

permission to implead the Liquidator of M/s.Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Sut Girni Limited as Party Defendant in Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2001 or in the alternative issue a direction granting permission to the Petitioner to implead Respondent No.3 and Party Defendant in Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2001 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sangli.

¶23

2 The Petitioner is a Society incorporated under the provisions of the The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and carries on business of distribution of electricity throughout the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner issued various bills for distribution of electricity to M/s.Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Sut Girni Limited. However, inspite of issuance of these bills, the said Society refused to pay arrears to the tune to Rs.6,96,55,47.39/- approximately and therefore the Petitioner was constrained to file a Special Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. The learned Civil Judge however noted that a Liquidator was appointed in respect of the said Society and therefore the Petitioner has to approach Respondent No.2 - the Director of Textile seeking permission to implead the Liquidator as Party Defendant in the said Suit. However, on refusal of Respondent No.2 to implead the Director of

2 / 5

Shraddha Talekar PA

918.wp.6603.2013.doc

Textile as a Party Respondent, a Revision Application was filed before the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Co-operation and Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Since the said Revision Application was not dismissed, the Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to decide the Respondent's Revision Application expeditiously. This Court, therefore, directed the Government to decide the Revision Application within two months. However, even after the expiry of two months, the Revision Application was not decided. Therefore, Civil Application was filed seeking further direction. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 25^th January 2012, directed Respondent No.1 to decide the Revision Application within six weeks. Even, in spite of further direction given by this Court, the Revision Application has not been decided.

¶28

3 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in our view, it would be futile to again give a direction to Respondent No.1 to decide the Revision Application. Since on earlier two occasions though direction was given, the said direction has not been complied. The casual approach of Respondent No.1 is not only deplorable but it is also contemptuous. However, we do not propose to issue contempt notice and further waste the time of this

3 / 5

Shraddha Talekar PA

918.wp.6603.2013.doc

Court, since we are satisfied that the Government does not appear to pay any heed to even the direction which has been given by this Court. We do not wish to express anything more by using harsh words against the despicable conduct of Respondent No.1 in not obeying a simple direction given by this Court. We are therefore, left with no other alternative but to consider the second request made by the Petitioner namely to consider whether leave should be granted to implead the Official Liquidator as a Party Respondent.

¶33

4 In the present case, the Petitioner is a Government owned Private Limited Company which has undertaken the work of distribution of electricity. The said Society which obviously appears to have political patronage has not paid the dues of the Society which are to the tune of Rs.9,96,55,000/-. A Liquidator has been appointed to the said Society. The Suit which has been filed by the Petitioner in the year 2001 is still pending since the Liquidator has not been impleaded as a Party Respondent. The Trial Court finally has by its order dated 18^th June 2013, observed that if no orders are obtained the Trial Court will be constrained to proceed with the Suit.

4 / 5

Shraddha Talekar PA

918.wp.6603.2013.doc

5 Taking into consideration the said peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,, in our view the remedy of approaching the concerned Authority cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy since no action has been taken by the concerned Authority despite the directions being given by this Court on two occasions. The Liquidator obviously is necessary and proper Party to the Suit and therefore we direct the Civil Judge, Senior Division to permit the Petitioner to implead the Liquidator as a Party Defendant in the said Suit. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks. The Suit not to proceed till then. Summons to be served within four weeks thereafter. The hearing of the Suit is expedited. The Suit will be decided within six months thereafter.

¶38

With these directions, the Petition is disposed of.

¶39

[K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶40

5 / 5

¶41

Shraddha Talekar PA

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through Superintending Engineer v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Corporation and Textile and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through Superintending Engineer v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Corporation and Textile 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

Shri. Anant Dharma Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Shantaram Lahane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept or Revenue and Ors.

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 22, Pune and Ors.

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Vistas Network Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and Ors.