Disposed

Subhash Keshav Gandhi v. the Mah State Electricity Dist. Co. and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2018WP/2017/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for damages to crop burnt by sparking electricity lines. Respondent, via affidavit, offered compensation pending title verification. Finding no live issue, the petition was disposed of ex parte.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of in terms of the affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.1.

Subhash Keshav Gandhi Vs the Mah State Electricity Dist… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

2017.12WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2017 OF 2012

¶6

SUBHASH KESHAV GANDHI
VERSUS

¶7

THE MAH STATE ELECTRICITY DIST. COMPANY AND
ANR

¶8

...

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. A.S. Gandhi
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
Advocates for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.C.
Patil holding for Mr. S.M. Godsay & Mr. D.P.
Palodkar

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Dated: February 27, 2018

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

By this Petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has claimed following substantive relief :-

¶14

“By issuing appropriate writ/direction
the respondent no.1 may be directed to
paydamages/compensationtothe
petitioner to the tune of 75,000/-
toward the damage of his sugarcane crop
to the extent of 40 R at Survey
No.124 situated at Rahata burn due to
heavy sparking as the “Y” phase

¶15

2017.12WP

¶16

¶17

transmission line in between the tower
no.259 to 260 of the Bableshwar-
Chalisgaon 220 K.V. Line of Bableshwar-
Kopergaon electricity transmission
line.”

¶18

2.Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that, the sugar cane
crop in the field of the petitioner bearing
land survey no.124 situated at village
Rahata, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmedangar was
burnt due to heavy sparking of transmission
line between the Tower Nos.259 to 260 of the
Bableshwar- Chalisgaon220 K.V. Electricity.
The panchanama in that respect was prepared
and the petitioner sustained the loss of
Rs. 75,000/-.

¶19

3.Affidavit in reply is submitted on
behalf of the Respondent No.1 and the same is
taken on record. In the said affidavit, in
paragraph nos.1 and 2, the Executive Engineer
of the Respondent No.1 has stated as under :-

¶20

“1.I say that, I am filing this
short affidavit-in-reply in pursuance
to the order of this Hon’ble Court
dated 14.11.2017. I tender my

¶21

2017.12WP

¶22

¶23

unconditionalapologyfornot
receiving the assistance from the
deponent in the present case. It is
humbly submitted that, initially the
MSEDCL has been added as party
respondent and later on by amending
the petition, MSETCL is added as party
respondent. After amendment, it
appears that, notice was not issued to
MSETCL and hence, the deponent could
not appear before this Hon’ble High
Court to assist in the matter. Under
these circumstances, this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to pass the order
dated 14.11.2017.

¶24

2.I say that, as far as grievance
raised in the Petition is concerned,
the deponent has verified the office
record. The amount of compensation
determined by the competent authority,
after verifying the title papers of
the land, would be paid within a
period of eight weeks from today.”

¶25

4.Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1 has also submitted that, the
concerned Respondent is ready to pay

¶26

2017.12WP

¶27

¶28

compensation, as stated in the affidavit,
subject to verification of the ownership
documents of the field of the petitioner by
the respondents.

¶29

5.In view of the aforementioned
contents in paragraph nos.1 and 2 of the
affidavit referred to above, nothing survives
to adjudicate in this Petition. Therefore,
the Petition is disposed of in terms of
paragraph nos.1 and 2 of the affidavit in
reply of the Respondent No.1.

¶30

6.No costs.

¶31

SGA

Subhash Keshav Gandhi v. the Mah State Electricity Dist. Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Keshav Gandhi v. the Mah State Electricity Dist. Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Ramdas Salunke Vs Kavita Deepak Salunke

Kamal Bhaurao Nawade Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Ranjana Bhaskar Anasane Vs the Director General Crpf Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and Others

Village Panchayat Gandhari through Its Sarpanch Ramesh Sukhdeo Niware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramchandra Bhanudas Veer Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Radhakisan Dhondiba Bhalekar Vs State of Maha