Disposed

Shyam Satardekar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2020WP/200/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this oral order, the High Court of Bombay at Goa disposed of a writ petition seeking electricity connection. The court directed the respondents to supply connection within seven days upon petitioner paying supervision charges and installing cables. The court criticized the Assistant Engineer for declining power supply based on pending complaints without a court injunction.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents to release electricity connection within 7 days of installation and petitioner paying ₹87,229/ supervision charges.

Shyam Satardekar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

 1 wp-200-2020 dtd. 11.03.2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2020

¶4

SHYAM SATARDEKAR., ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF SECRETARY
AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, Advocate with Ms. Kalpa D. Govenkar,
Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria S. J.
Correia, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶9

Coram : M. S. SONAK &
 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

¶10

 Date : 11th March, 2020.

¶11

Oral Order: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶12

Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General alongwith Ms.
Maria S.J. Correia, appear for the Respondents.

¶13

2. The learned Advocate General makes a statement that, in
the present case, the Petitioner, through a licensed electrical

¶14

 2 wp-200-2020 dtd. 11.03.2020

¶15

contractor, may install a transformer and other cables at the location
already indicated by the Petitioner, no doubt, at his own cost. The
cables will have to be laid from the nearest tapping point, which will
be at a distance approximately 160-170 metres from the location of
the transformer. The learned Advocate General states that within a
period of 7 days from such installation, necessary electricity
connection will be released to the building of the Petitioner.

¶16

4. The learned Advocate General also states that the Petitioner, will have to pay an amount of 87,229/- towards ₹ supervision charges in respect of the supervision which the concerned Respondents will have to undertake in the matter.

¶17

5.Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that
the supervision charges as aforesaid will be paid immediately, and
further, the Petitioner will undertake the necessary work of
installation as aforesaid.

¶18

6.By accepting the aforesaid statement made by the learned
Advocate General and by directing the Respondents to act
accordingly, we dispose of this Petition. However, before we do so,
we must say that the impugned communication dated 23.12.2019
issued by the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Quepem, is not at all
proper. Merely because some complaints may have been received or

¶19

 3 wp-200-2020 dtd. 11.03.2020

¶20

merely because some matters may be pending in the Court, in the
absence of any injunction from the Court, the Assistant Engineer
(O&M), should not have declined to release the power supply to the
building of the Petitioner. We note this because the Petitioner, had
earlier instituted a petition requiring Respondents to consider his
pending application for release of electricity connection and the same
has been disposed of by issuing directions for expeditious
consideration.

¶21

7. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶23

msr.

Shyam Satardekar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Satardekar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

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

Bharat Hotels Ltd., Rep. by Ankur Saluja., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Secretary (Home), Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Sns Marine Service Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Capt. Niranjan Kumar Basak and Anr., Vs Captain James Braganza and 2 Ors.

Radha Satish Timblo., Vs the Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and 3 Ors.

Chase Security Services, Thr. Its Proprietor, Ravindra Prabhakar Sawant and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Pankaj P. Bandekar., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Conceicao D'Costa Vs the Board of Trustees Forthe Mormugao Port .