Partly allowed

Mohd.Khalid Mohd Shafi Qureshi v. the General Manager,the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undetaking and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2016WP/613/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a writ under Article 226 directing the Respondent General Manager to decide the Petitioner's electricity connection application within one month, clarifying that a specific prior order does not compel rejection of said application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide electricity connection application within one month; Clarification that application cannot be rejected based on a specific prior order.

Mohd.Khalid Mohd Shafi Qureshi Vs the General Manager,the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undetaking and Anr. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

wp-613.16

sng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.613 of 2016

¶5

Mohd Khalid Mohd Shafi Qureshi. .. Petitioner Vs The General Manager and Another. .. Respondents

¶6

Ms. K.P. Reshma Ravi i/b Shri K.P. Ravi for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita Anchan for the Respondents i/b M.V. Kini & Co for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER 2016

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the

¶10

learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶11

Rule. The Advocate on record for the Respondents waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The prayer clauses (a) and (b) which are substantive prayers in this Petition read thus:

¶13

“(a) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the papers and documents in the proceedings in the above matter from the Respondents and after

wp-613.16

sng

examining the veracity and legality thereof, shall quash and set aside the decision of the Respondents not to grant electric connection to the Petitioner.

¶18

(b) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately grant the Petitioner her application for electric connection at Exhibit 'B' hereto and grant the Petitioner electric connection forthwith.”

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on

¶20

instructions states that the Application made by the Petitioner for grant of electricity connection is not yet decided and the same is kept pending on the ground that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has invited attention of the Respondents to the order dated 11th September 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No.3802 of 2012 in First Appeal No.1599 of 2013. A copy of the said order is placed on record and marked “X1” for identification.

¶21

On plain reading of the said order, we are of the view that the same does not come in the way of the first Respondent considering the Application made by the Petitioner for grant of electricity connection. Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition by passing the following order:

wp-613.16

sng

ORDER :

(a) We direct the first Respondent to decide the Application No.206198 made by the Petitioner on 11th May 2011 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one month from the date on which the order is uploaded;

¶27

(b) We clarify that the Application shall not be rejected on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 11th September 2014.

¶28

¶29

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Mohd.Khalid Mohd Shafi Qureshi v. the General Manager,the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undetaking and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Khalid Mohd Shafi Qureshi v. the General Manager,the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undetaking and Anr.

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

Pradeep Dattatray Kandalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Militry Affairs Ministry and 3 Others

Wallop Advertising Vs Divisional Commercial Manager Central Railway Cst, Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Amarshankar Bindraprasad Dixit and Nirmala a. Dixit (Applicant) Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 2 Ors.

Dhanaji Ganpati Vaidha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bipin Valechand Udani and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) and 3 Ors.

Shri Hemant Dnyaneshwar Salve Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.