Dismissed

M/S. Shree Balaji Builders and Developers v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2014WP/1957/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a final electricity assessment order, noting that an appeal remedy under Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was available. The court disposed of the petition while keeping contentions open for the appellate stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in favour of respondent with liberty to press unpressed prayers if appeal fails.

M/S. Shree Balaji Builders and Developers Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-1957.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1957 OF 2014

¶6

M/s. Shree Balaji Builders and Developers. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another.

¶7

.. Petitioner.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Shri S.R.Nargolkar for the Petitioner. Shri Kiran Gandhi for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A,A. SAYED, JJ DATE : 3RD MARCH 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the

¶14

learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is not pressing the prayer clause (a) at this stage.

¶15

As far as the challenge to the provisional assessment is concerned, now there is a final assessment and, therefore, against the final order of assessment, a remedy of appeal is available under Subsection (1) of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( for short “the said Act”). The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and the same has been made in breach of the principles of natural justice.

ash

wp-1957.14

If that be so, the Appellate Authority can always go into that aspect. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that normal experience is that even if the Appellate Authority allows the Appeal, the amount which is paid as a pre-condition is never ordered to be refunded and the same is normally adjusted towards the future bills. In the event, the Petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority and succeeds in the Appeal and he is denied the relief of refund, the Petitioner can always avail the appropriate remedy.

¶20

In view of the availability of the efficacious remedy of an appeal, we decline to entertain the Writ Petition. We find that the Writ Petition was filed on 18^th February 2014 within the time provided under the statute for filing an Appeal.

¶21

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following

¶22

order.

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

(a) The prayer clause (a) is not pressed at this stage. However, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to pray for the same relief in the event the Appeal before the Appellate Authority is unsuccessful;

ash

wp-1957.14

(b) We dispose of the Petition by keeping the statutory

¶29

remedy of the Petitioner expressly open;

¶30

(c) If an Appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law;

¶31

(d) All contentions raised by the Petitioner are expressly kept open. It is obvious that in the event the Petitioner fails in the Appeal, all contentions raised in this Petition will be available to the Petitioner when the Petitioner challenges the order of the Appellate Authority;

¶32

(e) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶33

(f) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

(A.A. SAYED, J)

¶35

( A.S. OKA, J )

M/S. Shree Balaji Builders and Developers v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shree Balaji Builders and Developers v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Indus Towers Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Seema Santosh Giri Vs Santosh Bandihari Giri

Mr. Shekar Lalbhai Dabhoya Vs Mrs.Pradnya Shekhar Dabhoya

Aashirwad Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Addl. Chief Secretary (R and R) and Ors.

Susheel Nana Kokare, through Father, Nana Mhaku Kokare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.