Disposed

Bora Ramji Sugnaji v. the Sr. Manager, Reliance Energy

Bombay HC23 Nov 2016WP/1031/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding non-sanctioned electricity supply. The Court held that the applicant had merely been asked to submit commercial occupancy documents rather than face rejection. Consequently, the application was dismissed on an undertaking to submit the documents within one month, with entitlement to supply reserved for future adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit necessary documents within one month; entitlement to electricity supply kept open.

Bora Ramji Sugnaji Vs the Sr. Manager, Reliance Energy — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

26-WP-1031-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2016

¶5

SHRI BORA RAMJI SUGNAJI )...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE SR.MANAGER, RELIANCE ENERGY )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Suresh S. Lanke a/w. Mr.N.K.Dubey, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. & A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 23^rd NOVEMBER 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

The grievance in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as regards the letter dated 27th January 2016 addressed by Reliance Infrastructure Limited to the advocate for petitioner. The case made out in the petition is that the petitioner

¶13

applied for grant of electricity supply to the respondent in October 2015. The grievance is that notwithstanding the said application,

¶14

the electricity supply has not been sanctioned to the petitioner.

¶15

avk 1/5

¶16

26-WP-1031-2016.doc

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the necessary documents have been submitted by the petitioner, but the respondent has refused to release the electricity supply.

¶18

2 We have perused the communication dated 27th January 2016 as well as the communication dated 2nd November 2015 issued by the respondent. Communication dated 2nd November 2015 records that the structure in respect of which electricity connection was claimed was demolished earlier and was reconstructed. The impugned letter dated 27th January 2016

¶19

reads thus :

¶20

“Sub : Electric connection at ref Business partner No.906105132 in the name of Mr.Ramji Suganaji Bora.

¶21

We refer to our letter – 185/MISC/SAD/2015 Dated :02.11.2015.

¶22

Further to our above referred letter, we hereby informed you that your client Mr.Ramji Suganaji Bora, has not yet submitted commercial occupancy documents, As said structure at Indira Nagar No.2, Thakkar Bappa Colony, Nr.Swami Vivekanand School, Galli

¶23

avk 2/5

¶24

26-WP-1031-2016.doc

¶25

No.31, S.G.Barve Marg, Chembur, Mumbai 400071 was previously demolished by MCGM & fresh notice dated 29.09.2015 under Section 354 of MMC Act has been issued by MCGM.

¶26

Kindly therefore advise your client to submit all legal documents from concerned authority to allow the processing of his application for Electric Supply.

¶27

We trust this clarifies the position.”

¶28

3 It is crystal clear from the impugned communication

¶29

dated 27th January 2016 that the respondent has not rejected the application made by the petitioner. The respondent has called upon the petitioner to submit commercial occupancy documents in respect of the structure to enable the respondent to process the application for grant of the electricity supply.

¶30

4 If according to the petitioner, he has already submitted commercial occupancy documents, he could have replied to the said letter and pointed out the necessary details. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has rushed to the writ Court.

¶31

avk 3/5

¶32

26-WP-1031-2016.doc

¶33

5 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that necessary documents in terms of the letter dated 27st January 2016 shall be submitted by the petitioner. We accept the said statement.

¶34

In view of this statement, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order :

¶35

i) We direct the petitioner to submit necessary documents in terms of the letter dated 27th January 2016 (Exhibit 1 to the petition) to the respondent, within a period of one month from today. If the documents are not submitted within a period of one month from today, it will be open for the respondent to reject the application made by

¶36

the petitioner;

¶37

ii) If the relevant documents are submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, an appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondent on the application made by the

¶38

avk 4/5

¶39

26-WP-1031-2016.doc

¶40

petitioner for grant of electricity supply within a period of one month from the date on which the documents are submitted;

¶41

iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the electricity supply and all the contentions in that behalf are kept open;

¶42

iv) The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶43

v) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶44

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶45

(A. S. OKA, J.)

¶46

avk 5/5

Bora Ramji Sugnaji v. the Sr. Manager, Reliance Energy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bora Ramji Sugnaji v. the Sr. Manager, Reliance Energy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Western Paper and Tarn Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Motabai Paras Private Limited

Namdev Tukaram Pednekar Vs Maharashtra State Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Mr.Rahul Kumar S/O.Shrenikbhai Bohara Vs M/S.Rapier Fabrics

Jagannath Gopala Raut Vs Tahsildar, Karad and Ors.

Mr. Bhagwan Gundu Mohite Vs Mrs. Shantabai Bhagwan Mohite

Hind Ekta Sra Co. Operative Housing Society (Proposed ) and 2 Others Vs High Power Committee and 3 Others