1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 641/2011 1. M/s. Sardessai Engineering Works, Naguesh Prasad, Madant, Cortalim, Goa. 2. Shri Prakash B. Sardessai, Naguesh Prasad, Madant, Cortalim, Goa. …...... Petitioners. v/s. 1. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Electricity Department, Government of Goa, Vidyut Bhavan, 4th Floor, Vasco, 403 802, Goa through its Chairman. 2. The Chief Electrical Engineer, Vidyut Bhavan, Panaji,Goa. …...... Respondents. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & U.V. BAKRE, JJ. DATE : 17th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per A.P. LAVANDE, J.) 2 Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 being formal party, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26 th August, 2011 passed by respondent No.1, by which respondent No.1 has declined to entertain the application filed by the petitioners herein, seeking redressal of the grievance under various provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. By order dated 11th December, 2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2009, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and in case the payment is not made as directed, respondent No.2 was permitted to proceed, in accordance with law, against the petitioners. 4. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that respondent No.1 has refused to entertain the application on the ground that the 3 petitioners have not paid the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as directed by this Court in terms of order dated 11th December, 2009. A bare perusal of the order dated 11th December, 2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2009, discloses that the payment of amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was not condition precedent for entertaining the application filed by the petitioners and as such, the impugned order is patently unsustainable in law and, as such, is liable to be set aside. 5. For the reason stated above, the impugned order dated 26th August, 2011 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the complaint/representation No.2/11 expeditiously and in any case, within a period of two months from today, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that respondent No.2 is at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount/dues payable by the petitioners. Petition stands disposed of. A.P. LAVANDE, J. U.V. BAKRE, J. ssm.