Disposed¶42

Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav through His C. a. and Son Manejar Ramvilas Yadav and 5 Ors. v. Best Enterprises ( an Undertaking of Mcgm) and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2025WP/998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition Article 226 electricity connection regularization BEST Undertaking temporary provisional supply consent order rights kept open S.C. Suit No. 102666 of 2023 City Civil Court consumer status electricity charges writ of mandamus police assistance reconnection Consumer No. 650-131-001*8LT1B

What did the court decide?

By consent, respondent nos. 1 and 2 (BEST) directed to regularize, within four weeks, the temporary provisional electricity supply granted pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2022; petitioners to pay electricity charges regularly and receive 'regular consumer' status; all rights and contentions (including in S.C. Suit No. 102666 of 2023) expressly kept open; petition disposed of with no costs. ¶42

Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav through His C. a. and Son… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the electricity supply to the petitioners, currently temporary/provisional, should be regularized, subject to all rights and contentions of respondent nos. 3 to 6 including in the pending civil suit. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The temporary provisional electricity supply granted to/made available for the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2022 shall be regularized by respondent nos. 1 and 2 within a period of four weeks.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the petitioners and of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the premises or other inter se rights, including in the pending S.C. Suit No. 102666 of 2023, are expressly kept open.

¶40

Key takeaways

Upon regularization of supply, the petitioners are directed to make regular payments of electricity charges, being granted the status of 'regular consumer'.ratio¶41
Considering the fair stands taken by the parties, further adjudication of the petition is not called for and it is disposed of in terms of the consent order.ratio¶34
The Court expressly declined to discuss anything relating to the pending civil suit between the petitioners and respondent nos. 3 to 6, confining itself to the electricity-supply proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Coram G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. — Writ Petition No. 998 of 2024 under Article 226 by Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav & Ors. against BEST Enterprises & Ors., seeking expedited processing of a new electricity-connection application dated 11 May 2022 and reinstatement/reconnection of connection bearing Consumer No. 650-131-001*8LT1B, the disconnection having arisen out of a premises dispute with private respondent nos. 3 to 6. Earlier orders of a co-ordinate Bench dated 26 July 2022 and 15 September 2022 had led to a temporary provisional supply being granted. As counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6 raised no objection to regularization (subject to their rights in the pending S.C. Suit No. 102666 of 2023, City Civil Court, Bombay) and BEST was agreeable (petitioners regularly paying charges), the Court found further adjudication unnecessary and disposed of the petition by a consent order: (i) regularization of the temporary provisional supply within four weeks; (ii) all rights and contentions of the petitioners and respondent nos. 1 and 2, including in the pending suit, expressly kept open; (iii) petitioners to make regular electricity-charge payments as 'regular consumer'. No costs.

¶1

904. WP 998-2024.DOC

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 2024

¶4

Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

BEST Enterprises (An undertaking of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Altaf Khan a/w Ms. Supriya Ghadge for Petitioners. Mr. Sumeet Palsuledesai i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Prashant J. Rai i/b Mr. Vivek Singh for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. Ms. Jaymala J. Ostwal, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶10

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

¶11

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. Date: 08 JANUARY, 2025.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

¶15

filed praying for the following substantive reliefs :-

¶16

A] that this Hon’ble Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, issue Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-BEST [The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking] to expedite the Application dated 11 May 2022 for New Electricity connection and provide New/fresh electricity

¶17

Rajesh Chittewan PA

¶18

904. WP 998-2024.DOC

¶19

connection by taking necessary steps in law, in the name of Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav [Petitioner No.1] and be further pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 to provide necessary Police assistance, if required for installation of such New/Fresh Electricity Connection.

¶20

A1] that this Hon’ble Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, issue Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ and be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-instate, reconnect and reinstall the Electricity connection Bearing Consumer No.650-131-001*8LT1B at “Ground floor” or “Suit Premise” on the name of Petitioner No.1 and be further pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 to provide necessary Police assistance, if required for such reconnection/reinstallation.

¶21

The parties were heard by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

¶22

15 September 2022, when the following order was passed :-

¶23

“1. The dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 is pending with City Civil Court, as is contended by respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶24

Grant of provisional restoration of electricity supply to the petitioner may not create any separate right in favour of the petitioner. We had, under order dated 26^th July 2022, directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider right of provisional restoration of electric supply to the petitioner, as may be permissible under law. It is submitted that the application has

¶25

Rajesh Chittewan PA

¶26

904. WP 998-2024.DOC

¶27

been filed on 23^rd August 2022. The said application shall be considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 only for grant of temporary provisional supply of electricity. The same would not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner. It is only because the electricity is one of the basic amenities, we had passed the order. The same would not affect the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 pending before any other Court. The respondents may file reply before next date.

¶28

Place the matter on 7^th December 2022.”

¶29

By the aforesaid order, this Court had directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to grant a temporary provisional supply of electricity, while observing that the same would not create any vested right in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, a temporary provisional supply of electricity was granted. The petitioners have stated that they are regularly paying the electricity charges. There is no dispute between the petitioners and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in that regard. It is also clear from the averments as made in the petition that the issue of disconnection of the electricity supply to the petitioners had arisen on account of a dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents nos.3 to 6. Also, there is a civil suit pending before City Civil Court, Bombay, being S.C. Suit No.102666 of 2023 between the petitioners and respondent nos. 3 to 6. We do not intend to discuss anything qua the civil suit, suffice is to observe that the same is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an apprehended eviction by respondent nos. 3 to 6 without following the due

¶30

Rajesh Chittewan PA

¶31

904. WP 998-2024.DOC

¶32

procedure in law. However, insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, as noted above, this Court has permitted to the petitioners to have an electricity connection, namely of a temporary supply of electricity on which there is no dispute.

¶33

Learned Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 has fairly stated that his clients would not have any objection, if the electricity supply is regularized and subject to all the rights and contentions of respondent nos. 3 to 6, including that in the pending suit. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 will also not be averse to regularizing the electricity supply in favour of the petitioners, as these petitioners are regularly paying electricity charges.

¶34

In the aforesaid circumstances, considering a fair stand taken by the parties in our opinion, further adjudication of this petition is not called for. The writ petition can be conveniently disposed of in terms of the following consent order :-

¶35

: O R D E R :

¶36

i. A temporary provisional electricity supply as granted to the petitioners and/or as made available by respondent nos.1 and 2 pursuant to order dated 15 September 2022 passed by this Court, be regularized by respondent nos.1 and 2, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶37

ii. All rights and contentions of the petitioners as also respondent nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the premises or any other rights inter se including the rights and

¶38

Rajesh Chittewan PA

¶39

904. WP 998-2024.DOC

¶40

contentions in the pending S.C. Suit No.102666 of 2023, are expressly kept open.

¶41

iii. Petitioners are directed to make regular payments on the electricity charges on the supply being regularized by granting to the petitioners the status of ‘regular consumer’.

¶42

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶43

(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)

¶44

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.01.20 16:47:13 +0530

¶46

Rajesh Chittewan PA

Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav through His C. a. and Son Manejar Ramvilas Yadav and 5 Ors. v. Best Enterprises ( an Undertaking of Mcgm) and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvilas Surajbali Yadav through His C. a. and Son Manejar Ramvilas Yadav and 5 Ors. v. Best Enterprises ( an Undertaking of Mcgm) and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yashraj Biotechnology Limited vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Ramesh Vitthal Khot vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Ramesh Vitthal Khot vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Garib Nagar Rahiwasi Welfare Sangh Society vs Union of India

Amit Dholakia vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Co-Operation and 6 Ors.

Surendra Shriniwas Nigudkar vs Ms. Ketki Surendra Nigudkar