Dismissed¶¶27

Shri Anil Wadpalliwar v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary

Bombay HC9 Dec 2025PIL/129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of PIL (Nagpur Bench, decided 09/12/2025, [2025:BHC-NAG:13841-DB]) challenging MERC resolution dated 04/09/2018 declaring audio/video recordings of Commission meetings 'not part of official record' and permitting their elimination; challenge rejected as covered by Principal Seat judgment in PIL No.79 of 2025; prayer for prosecution of Commission members under Ss. 8 & 9, Maharashtra Public Record Act, 2005 refused; recordings held not a public record per Regns. 78 & 79(c), MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004.

What did the court decide?

The prayer clause challenging the resolution dated 04/09/2018 is dismissed, the identical challenge having been rejected by the binding judgment of this Court at the Principal Seat in PIL No.79 of 2025. ¶¶16

Shri Anil Wadpalliwar Vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the resolution dated 04/09/2018 passed by the respondent-Commission is illegal, arbitrary, draconian and highly unconstitutional and defeats transparency of proceedings before the State Commission. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

With the rejection of the challenge to the Resolution dated 04/09/2018, Clause (3) thereof must be deemed to have been upheld; consequently, the petitioner's contention that the recordings formed part of the official record cannot be accepted.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The recordings of the Commission's meetings are not a public record, Regulation Nos.78 and 79(c) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 supporting that position, and not being a public record is the prerequisite to attract Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 2005.ratio¶¶25
The petitioner's prayer to prosecute the members of the Commission cannot be granted.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL No. 129 of 2018, Anil Wadpalliwar v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench; Anil S. Kilor & Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ.; pronounced 09/12/2025) — Dismissed. The challenge to the Commission's resolution dated 04/09/2018 (Clause (3): recordings of meetings 'not part of official record', to be eliminated in due course) fails, being squarely covered by the binding Principal Seat judgment in PIL No.79 of 2025; Clause (3) therefore stands deemed upheld and the contention that the recordings formed part of the official record is rejected. The surviving amended prayer for criminal prosecution of the members of the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 of the Maharashtra Public Record Act, 2005 is refused: Regulation Nos.78 and 79(c) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 support that the recordings are not a public record, which is a prerequisite to attract those sections. Pending Civil Applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:13841-DB

¶2

1 4-PIL129-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 129 OF 2018

¶5

(ANIL WADPALLIWAR....VS..MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTH.)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Santosh Runghta, Sr.Adv. a/b Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Shri P.K.Sathianathan, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri Ratnakar Singh, Adv. a/w Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Adv. for R-3 & 5.

¶8

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND

¶9

RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

¶10

DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 08/12/2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09/12/2025

¶11

Heard.

¶12

In the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) a declaration is sought that the resolution dated 04/09/2018 passed by the respondent-Commission as per se illegal, arbitrary, draconian and highly unconstitutional. It is contended that the said resolution defeats the spirit of the transparency in the proceedings held before the State Commission and therefore, does not stand to the scrutiny of law.

¶13

The petitioner then amended the petition and added a prayer to initiate appropriate criminal prosecution as prescribed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Record Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”) against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for violating Section 8 of the said Act by eliminating the record till 4^th September 2008, without seeking permission of the Director of Department of Archives.

¶14

2 4-PIL129-2018

¶15

It is important to note that similar public interest litigation was filed before the Principal Seat at Mumbai vide PIL No.79 of 2025 seeking quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 04/09/2018. In the said PIL an injunction and stay was sought from taking further steps by the respondents in furtherance of the impugned resolution, which also includes elimination of record. In the said PIL a reference was also made to the Act of 2005.

¶16

This Court at Principal Seat, vide order dated 11/11/2015, dismissed the said PIL and thereby rejected the challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018. Since the said judgment dated 11/11/2025 is binding on this Court and squarely covers the challenge raised to the constitutionality of the resolution dated 04/09/2018, the fate of the challenge raised in the present petition to the resolution dated 04/09/2018, will follow the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the prayer clause raising challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018.

¶17

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer for initiation of the appropriate criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Act of 2005 for eliminating the record is the prayer which survives.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the audio and video recordings of the meetings of the Commission was maintained by the Commission since inception. It was for clarity and transparency. It is submitted that on 04/09/2018 the impugned resolution was issued and on 05/09/2018 such

¶19

3 4-PIL129-2018

¶20

audio and video record was eliminated without showing any tearing urgency to destroy the same. It is, therefore, argued that such elimination of the record without following due procedure is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2005 and hence, the members of the Commission shall be prosecuted.

¶21

On the other hand, Shri Runghta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Commission argues that once the challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018 is rejected, the prayer for prosecution of the members of the Commission cannot be granted as Clause (3) of the resolution dated 04/09/2018 permits to eliminate the recording done till 04/09/2018 in due course of time as it is not part of the official record. It is argued that since such recording was not part of the official record, provisions of the Act of 2005 will not apply. It is, therefore, prayed that no prayer, as sought to prosecute the members of the Commission may be granted.

¶22

In light of the rival submissions on the issue to prosecute the members of the Commission, we perused the record and the relevant provisions.

¶23

The Resolution dated 04/09/2018, particularly Clause (3), stipulates that “The recordings done till date be eliminated in due course of time as it is not part of official record.” This clause expressly declares that such recordings do not constitute part of the official record and further permits their elimination. Consequently, once the challenge to the Resolution dated 04/09/2018 is rejected, Clause (3) must also be deemed to have been upheld by this Court. Therefore, the contention

¶24

4 4-PIL129-2018

¶25

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said recordings formed part of the official record cannot be accepted. Moreover, Regulation Nos.78 and 79(c) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 support the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission that it is not a public record, which is prerequisite to attract Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 2005.

¶26

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prayer as made by the petitioner to prosecute the members of the Commission cannot be granted. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶27

i) The Public Interest Litigation No.129 of 2018 is dismissed .

¶28

ii) The pending Civil Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶29

iii) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J)

¶31

RRaut..

Shri Anil Wadpalliwar v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Anil Wadpalliwar v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Adv. Mrinall Chakravorty vs Law and Justice Department Government of Maharashtra Thruogh Its Secretary

Priti W/O Pravin Bhandarkar vs the Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan

Mr. Yashwant Dattaram Gangawane vs the State of Maharasahtra

Shriniwas Gyandeorao Mundhe vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Shaikh Husen Shaikh Burhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sapan Sushilkumar Jhunjhunwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwesh Atchuta Kamat and Anr. vs the High Court of Judicature of Bombay and Others

Sushil Atmaram Jejani Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Kisan Vatu Gedekar and Another Vs the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Nagpur and Another

Maha. Van Rakshak - Vanpal Sanghatna, Shahapur, Thr. Divisional President, Pravin K. Vishe and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Anil Mahadeo Garode Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Suraj Premdas Bankar and Others Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary Water Resources Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ashok Jagan Meshram Vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Water Resources Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others