1 WP4226.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4226 OF 2011 Shri Ravindra Chavan ...Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.& Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Mukesh M. Vashi i/by Mr. Deepak Deshmukh and Pavan Uttarwar for the Petitioner.. Mr. Rahul Sinha i/by DSK Legal for Respondent No.1. Ms.Shilpa Kapil for Respondent No.2. Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. In this proceeding the petitioner has questioned an order dated 30 November, 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Second respondent, and its subsequent orders dated 26 November, 2010 and 24 February 2011 by which the Commission allowed implementation and extension of a Zero Load Shedding Policy in respect of the headquarters of revenue divisions in the license area of the First respondent viz. at Amravati, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Nasik, Pune, Thane and 2 WP4226.11.sxw Vashi 2. In the affidavit filed in reply by the Second respondent, a preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the orders impugned are subject to an appeal under section 111 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Appellate Tribunal. We would have not been inclined to entertain the petition having regard to the fact that the statutory appeal lies under section 111 of the Act. However, it now transpires that a petition has been rendered infructuous as a result of subsequent developments. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First respondent stated that the zero load shedding policy which was extended until 30 June 2001 has not been continued thereafter. That apart, an application for the withdrawal of the zero load shedding policy was made before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission has concluded the hearing on 3 August 2011 and the case is reserved for orders. It is also stated in the affidavit-in- reply that the Second respondent conducts public hearings in which objections from members of the public are invited, and heard. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to keep the petition alive. The petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt remedies open to it in law in the event it becomes necessary to do so. 3 WP4226.11.sxw 3. The petition is accordingly disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)