Disposed

Ashok Krishnaji Patwardhan v. Mula Pravara Electric Co. Operative Soceity Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2014PIL/2/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding unrecovered electricity charges of Rs. 2400 crores. It directed the Civil Judge at Shrirampur to expedite a pending civil suit for recovery within the specified timeline. The Court held that once regulatory and civil authorities are activated, no further relief is required in the writ, and linked matters were de-linked.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrirampur, to expedite the recovery suit and dispose of it by 31st August, 2014. All writ petitions disposed of except one, which was de-linked.

Ashok Krishnaji Patwardhan Vs Mula Pravara Electric Co… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pil 2.10.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2 OF 2010

¶5

Ashok s/o. Krishnaji Patvardhan

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr.Umakant K. Patil,advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.G.K. Naik Thigale, Additional GP for the Respondent
No.4

¶11

Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Nagendra Rail, Senior Counsel with Mr. Varun
Agrawal for respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
 DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1]By this writ petition and which was treated
as PIL and heard on prior occasions, the petitioner
is praying for a writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent
Nos. 3 and 4, to revoke the licence of the respondent
No.1 and to recover all arrears of electricity charges
from the Mula Pravara Electric Cooperative Society
Ltd., amounting to Rs.2400 crores, as on 9th April,

¶15

pil 2.10.odt

¶16

{2}

¶17

2010, and after this date till revocation alongwith
interest.

¶18

2]Prayer clauses (C) and (D) of this writ
petition (PIL) read as under :-

¶19

“By an appropriate writ of Mandamus
or of like nature, the respondent Nos.3 and
4 may kindly be directed to act upon the
report as submitted by the Commissioner of
Cooperative and Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, dated
27thOctober, 2002 and take appropriate
actions against the persons those who are
directly responsible for the losses caused
to the society and revoke the license of the
society as per Indian Electricity Act and
License Rules;

¶20

D]By an appropriate writ, the respondent
No.1 MPECS may kindly be directed to deposit
the entire dues of Rs.2400 Crores, as on
9.4.2010 alongwith interest in this
Honourable Court which is due and payable to
theMaharashtraStateElectricity
Distribution Company Ltd.”

¶21

3]The petitioner claims to be a citizen of
India and residing at Aurangabad. He was cultivating
a piece of land. He is having an electrical
connection. He claims that he is paying the bills
regularly. However, in view of the fact that, several
acts of commission and omission have been committed by
the licensee, namely, the respondent No.1, and that is
why there is a huge hike in the charges for
consumption of electricity and energy. It is,
therefore, a clear case, where, consumers like the
petitioner are put to loss and disadvantage because of

¶22

{3}

¶23

pil 2.10.odt

¶24

the irregularities and illegalities committed by the
public bodies. That is how the writ petition was
filed and treated as a PIL.

¶25

4]With the passage of time, several events
have taken place. Firstly, undisputedly the license
which was issued in favour of respondent No.1 has been
cancelled or revoked. The proceedings in relation
thereto, are pending before the competent court/
authority,tribunal and therefore, we need not express
any opinion on the rival contentions, in so far as
those proceedings are concerned.

¶26

5]TheMaharashtraStateElectricity
Distribution Company (respondent No.3) has taken over
the duties and responsibilities of the first
respondent/licensee. Equally, it being a wing of the
erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and
part thereof, it has taken over the duties and
responsibilities, in so far as, distribution of
electricity is concerned and in terms of the
Electricity Act, 2003.

¶27

6]It has stated before us that as far as the
recovery of the amount and stated to be quantified at
Rs.2400 Crores is concerned, it has already approached
the competent civil court, namely, the Court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Shrirampur, wherein, civil
Suit No. 5/2011 has been instituted and it is pending
in that court. The suit is for recovery of the sum of
Rs.2400 Crores approximately, together with interest.

¶28

{4}

¶29

pil 2.10.odt

¶30

7]The request made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, is to
expedite the hearing of this suit. So far as the
issue regarding tariff is concerned, there are
proceedings pending between the affected parties and
the respondent No.2, i.e. Maharashtra Electricity
Regulatory Commission. Even in relation thereto, we
find that the petitioner's grievance has been taken
care of. These matters fall within the exclusive
domain of the Regulatory Commission.

¶31

8]The Petitioner is free to approach such
Commission in the event he finds that the Commission
has not been informed of all the issues and
controversies, including in relation to this PIL. It
would be open for the petitioner then to adopt such
proceedings, as are permissible in law.

¶32

9]The request that the hearing of the civil
suit should be expedited and in larger public interest
deserves acceptance. We find that when the recovery is
to be tune of Rs.2400 Crores, as claimed, and a civil
suit is filed in that behalf in the civil court, and
is pending since 3 years, then, in our view, interest
of justice would be served if the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) is directed to hear and dispose of
this suit, as expeditiously as possible and in any
event, on or before 31st August, 2014.

¶33

10]All the parties should cooperate with the
learned Presiding Officer in expeditious disposal of
the suit, and as directed by this court. No

¶34

{5}

¶35

pil 2.10.odt

¶36

adjournment unless requested on justifiable and
deserving ground shall be granted. The Civil Judge
(S.D.) shall submit a comprehensive report in the even
parties compel him to seek extension of time. In no
way, the learned Judge shall leave that option to the
parties and seek any concession from this court. The
Presiding Officer should himself make a report and
indicate, why he is not able to adhere to this time
schedule, in the event he is not able to dispose of
the suit by 31st August, 2014. The learned Judge is
expected to control the proceedings effectively.

¶37

11]We would also appreciate if the Regulatory
Commission, before whom the proceedings are pending,
takes them up and disposes them of, expeditiously.

¶38

12]Once we have found that the authorities
under the relevant statutes have been activated and to
this extent, then, nothing more is required to be done
in this PIL.

¶39

13]It would be open for the petitioner to
approach a competent civil court or a competent
criminal court, independently, as well in the event
the petitioner is of the opinion that cognizable
offences have been committed or that the losses to
public exchequer have resulted on account of the mis-
management,negligence,mal-administrationor
misfeasance, or any such act of commission and
omission on the part of the respondent No.1 and its
officers. We keep all contentions of both sides in
that behalf, open.

¶40

{6}

¶41

pil 2.10.odt

¶42

14]We find that if this PIL has been
entertained only with a view to ensure that competent
authorities act in accordance with law, then, the
purpose of the same has been achieved.

¶43

15]W.P. No. 10752 of 2010 was tagged with this
PIL, but, the PIL had larger, somewhat, distinct
issues. Hence, we are of the opinion that W.P. No.
10752 of 2010, be de-linked. It shall, however, be
placed for admission only after the Civil Suit No. 5
of 2011, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Shrirampur is decided or disposed of.

¶44

16]Registry to take appropriate steps and list
this matter for direction on 8th September, 2014. A
pending civil application shall also be listed
alongwith the same.

¶45

17]In the result, the PIL and other connected
writ petitions are disposed of, except W.P. No.
10752/2010, which has been de-linkled from this group.

¶46

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶47

grt/-

Ashok Krishnaji Patwardhan v. Mula Pravara Electric Co. Operative Soceity Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Krishnaji Patwardhan v. Mula Pravara Electric Co. Operative Soceity Limited and 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

Rajendra Dashrathrao Datey Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhukar Dadmodharrao Sawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Milind Yashwantrao Dabhade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhukar Laxmanrao Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Ramchandra Bhimaji Shinde Vs Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council Talegaon Dabhade and Anr.

Anil (Sanjay) Sharad Walhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jashwant Bhaichand Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Morarji Kenia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashifkhan Daulatkhan Pathan Vs Vijay Namdeo Lahane and Ors.

Shaikh Aslam Shaikh Ramzan and Anr. Vs Vijay Namdeo Lahane and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ansuyabai Baburao Patil and Ors.

Shivswayambhu Realtors Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Lokmanya Enterprises through Partner Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnupant Ambadas Mane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.