1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO.8105 OF 2009 The Registrar (Judicial), The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Prakash Ganga, Plot No.C-19, E-Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurula Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Prakash Ganga, Plot No.C-19, E Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurula Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Energy and Power Resources, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 4. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Department of Energy and Power Resources, Sachivalaya, Delhi ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mrs M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate (appointed as amicus curiae) for the petitioner; Mr A.S. Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Mr S.M. Godsay for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.3; Mr Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondent no.4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 19th November, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A newspaper item came to be published in the local newspaper on 22.10.2009 in respect of failure to provide electricity connection to the villages where the below poverty line families were residing. This Court took suo motu cognizance of the said news item and accordingly this writ petition, which is styled as a "suo motu writ petition" came to be registered. The Division Bench of this Court which took cognizance of the news item, by order dated 1.12.2009 appointed Advocate Smt. M.D. Thube-Mhase as an amicus curiae. The learned Counsel has filed a detailed petition in which it is highlighted that the goal of the 3 scheme was to provide electricity connection to 16,309 villages but only 6,069 villages could get the benefit of the scheme. On account of the load-shedding which often existed from 15 to 20 hours, it was imperative to provide expeditious electricity connection to those villages which were deprived of electrical connection since last so many years. 3. This Court accordingly issued notice to the respondents i.e. the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and others. In response to the notice issued by this Court an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2, i.e. the Maharashtra State Electricity Co. Ltd. and the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 at paragraph 5, it is categorically stated as under :- "It is further submitted that there are 18,76,391 BPL un- electrified households in the State of Maharashtra out of which 4,88,872 households are electrified upto November, 2009. The remaining 13,87,519 households are to be electrified up to December, 2010." 4 The portion referred to above clearly indicates that electrical connection would be provided to the remaining households by December, 2010. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. In the light of the aforesaid statement, according to us nothing further survives for consideration in this petition. Learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.2 is informed that this Court has accepted the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. The aforesaid statement, which is made on oath, is accepted as an undertaking to the Court. 4. We accordingly make Rule absolute in terms of the statement referred to above and which is accepted as an undertaking to the Court. We wish to place on record our appreciation for the efforts rendered by the learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court and accordingly quantify the fees payable to the learned amicus curiae at Rs.10,000/-. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR ), ( P.V.HARDAS ), JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp8105.09 5 SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO.8105 OF 2009 Date of decision : 19th November, 2010 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ Anant Joshi ] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge