1 srk wp-2531-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2010 M/s. Harsha Agencies ... Petitioner Versus The Candle Light Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others ... Respondents Mr. V.P. Vaze for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Patel a/w Nirav Shah i/b Hariani & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr. H. Toor a/w Ms. Shweta Sharma i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.9 & 10. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J. Monday, April 25, 2011 P .C. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is an order dated 23rd July 2010 of the Ombudsman in Representation No.74 of 2010, whereby the Ombudsman set aside the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dated 21st April, 2010. 2. By the said order, the Forum issued a direction to the BEST Undertaking to disconnect the electric meter provided to respondent No.1 Candlelight Company Private Limited. The Forum held that respondent No.1 was not entitled to a separate electricity connection and that the petitioner shall continue to provide electric supply from his meter to respondent No.1 in the manner provided in the past. 2 srk wp-2531-10.sxw 3. The Ombudsman has held that respondent No.1 is the occupier of the premises since 1995 and only on account of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 whether respondent No.1 is a tenant or leave and licence holder, the Forum held that the respondent No.1 was not entitled to the separate electric meter and connection. 4. The Ombudsman has clarified that the direction to provide separate electric meter to respondent No.1 will not come in the way of the Court of Small Causes to decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The Ombudsman further recorded the submission of respondent No.1 Candlelight Co.Pvt.Ltd. that in the event the final Court rules against it, it would voluntarily approach the BEST undertaking in surrendering the electric connection. The Ombudsman further held that the answer to the limited question whether BEST has granted electricity connection to Candlelight Co.Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Regulations, was in the affirmative and therefore,l the separate connection already provided by BEST to respondent No.1 Candlelight Co. Pvt.Ltd cannot be ordered to be disconnected at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same contentions which were urged before the Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman. 6. In view of the fact that respondent No.1 Candlelight Co.Pvt.Ltd. is admittedly found to be occupier of the premises in question since 1995 and that the Electricity Ombudsman has provided the sufficient safeguards, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. 3 srk wp-2531-10.sxw 7. All the contentions are kept open and it is clarified that the order of the Electricity Ombudsman will not create any equity in favour of the respondent No.1 Candlelight Co.Pvt.Ltd. in the dispute between it and the petitioner regarding the nature of possession of respondent No.1. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.