Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl), Thr.Its Superintending Enginee v. M/S Shrinath Oil Industries, Arvi and Another

Bombay HC4 Nov 2025WP/1150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MSEDCL; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.; infrastructure cost; electricity connection; refund of infrastructure cost; interest and centages; Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.4305/2007 decided 10/11/2016; M/s. Rukmini Industries; writ petitions disposed of; no order as to costs; Nagpur Bench; 2025:BHC-NAG:11443; W.P. Nos. 1145, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of as nothing survives, since respondent No.1 confirmed receipt of refund of infrastructure cost; direction recorded that if interest and centages are not received, respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶¶18

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl), Thr.Its Superintending Enginee Vs M/S Shrinath Oil Industries, Arvi and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the infrastructure cost earlier levied by MSEDCL for the purpose of giving electricity connections was permissible.

¶¶10

Court's answer

The statements of counsel are accepted and recorded; if interest and centages are not received, respondent No.1 is to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Nothing survives in these petitions in view of the refund of infrastructure cost; the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J., 04-11-2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:11443) disposed of Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2019 (MSEDCL vs. M/s. Rukmini Industries and another) along with connected Writ Petition Nos. 1150, 1147, 1149, 1148 and 1151 of 2019. The common issue was whether the infrastructure cost earlier levied by MSEDCL for giving electricity connections was permissible. Noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided Civil Appeal No.4305/2007 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and another) on 10/11/2016, quashing the imposition of infrastructure cost, the Court recorded counsel's statements that MSEDCL had begun refunding such cost and that respondent No.1 had received back the infrastructure cost paid in all these petitions, leaving no surviving grievance. The Court accepted and recorded the statements, directed that if interest and centages are not received, respondent No.1 is to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, held that nothing survived in the petitions, disposed of them accordingly, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

1 17-wp 1145.2019 +.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:11443

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1145 OF 2019

¶5

( MSEDCL vs. M/s. Rukmini Industries and another )

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1150 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION NO. 1151 OF 2019

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. S.V.Purohit, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H.R.Gadhia, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. NOVEMBER 04, 2025

¶10

1. These petitions are pending for admission considering a common issue involved in these writ petitions, i.e. whether infrastructure cost, which was earlier levied for the purpose of giving electricity connections by the Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited (M.S.E.D.C.L.), was permissible.

¶11

1. It is stated that the subject matter in Civil Appeal No.4305/2007 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and another) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been decided on 10/11/2016, by which the imposition of infrastructure cost has been quashed.

¶12

1. In that light of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the M.S.E.D.C.L. has started to

¶13

KOLHE

¶14

2 17-wp 1145.2019 +.odt

¶15

refund the infrastructure cost, as received by them, while granting applications, seeking electricity connections.

¶16

1. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 makes a statement that the infrastructure cost, as paid by his clients in all these petitions, has been received back, and therefore, the grievance in the matter does not survive.

¶17

1. Statements are accepted and recorded. If the interest and centages are not received then respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶18

In that light of the matter, nothing survives in these petitions. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶19

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶20

KOLHE

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl), Thr.Its Superintending Enginee v. M/S Shrinath Oil Industries, Arvi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl), Thr.Its Superintending Enginee v. M/S Shrinath Oil Industries, Arvi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay S/O Dnyaneshwar Chaurasia and 2 Others Vs Narayanprasad S/O Hariprasad Chaurasia (Dead) and 3 Others

Ajay S/O Dnyaneshwar Chaurasia and 2 Others Vs Narayanprasad S/O Hariprasad Chaurasia and 3 Others

Ravi S/O Vitthalrao Dahake and Another Vs Chief Conservator of Forest, Karya Ayojan Vrutta, Nagpur Circle, Nagpur and Others

Milind Ramdas Patil and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Harishchandra Narso Waghulde and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sayed Ameer Sayyed Yasin Died through Lrs Syed Yusuf Syed Ameer and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others