Disposed

Mohd Arif Rehamtullah Ansari v. the General Manager the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2017WP/603/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench directed the respondent undertaking to decide pending electricity connection applications for the petitioners expeditiously within one month, clarifying they cannot be rejected based on a prior pending Single Judge order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to decide pending electricity connection applications within one month; clarified applications cannot be rejected based on a specific pending Single Judge order.

Mohd Arif Rehamtullah Ansari Vs the General Manager… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP. 603-16, 580-16, 581-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 603 OF 2016

¶5

Mohd. Arif Rehamtullah Ansari … Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking … Respondents

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 580 OF 2016

¶7

Merchant Modh. Hussain Ibrahim … Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking … Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 581 OF 2016

¶9

Sherbanu Zoeb Kanchwala … Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking … Respondents ***

¶10

Ms. K. P. Reshma Ravi i/b K. P. Ravi & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr. Arsh Misra i/b M. V. Kini & Co., for Respondents.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 9, 2017

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

WP. 603-16, 580-16, 581-16

¶15

PC.

¶16

Rule (in all the three petitions). Learned advocate Mr.

¶17

Arsh Misra waives service of notice for Respondents. These petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.

¶18

The petitioner in the petitions have made an application to the respondents for grant of electricity connection to the premises, described in the petitions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, states that the said applications have not been decided and are kept pending, in view of the order dated 11^th September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 3802 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 1599 of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 561/2016 alongwith Writ Petition No. 825/2016 after going through the said order came to a conclusion that the said order would not come in the way of first respondent in considering the applications made by the petitioners for grant of electricity connection. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, disposed of those petitions by passing following order :

¶19

“(a) We direct the first Respondent to decide the pending Applications of the Petitioners for grant of electricity

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

WP. 603-16, 580-16, 581-16

¶22

connection 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;

¶23

(b) We make it clear that the Applications shall not be rejected on the basis of the order dated 11^th September, 2014;

¶24

¶25

In our view, the facts in the present petitions are identical with those petitions. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to decide the pending applications of the Petitioners for grant of electricity connection, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of one month from the date on which the order is uploaded. It is clarified that the applications shall not be rejected on the basis of order dated 11^th September, 2014. Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. All the three writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶26

Vinayak Halemath

¶27

3 / 3

Mohd Arif Rehamtullah Ansari v. the General Manager the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Arif Rehamtullah Ansari v. the General Manager the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Loot (India ) Pvt. Ltd. (CIN-U52322MH2003PTC140408) Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India

Pinto Randell Martin and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Prashant Shashikant Kittur Vs Kairoos Minoo Bhaya and 6 Others

Jitendra a. Maru and Ors. Vs Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Ors.

Nayan Engineer Vs Kumud Jayant Engineer and 2 Ors.

Sagar Travels and 5 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.