AJN PIL119.06 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.113 OF 2009 Rajendra Thacker ... Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Sumedha Rao for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/b Tri Legal for respondent 3. Ms. Anjali Chandorkar i/b Mulla & Mulla Craigie Blunt & Caroe for respondent 4. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.:- 1. According to the petitioner, this petition is filed in public interest. However, the grievance of the petitioner primarily appear to be personal in nature. Firstly, it was urged that RInfra i.e. the 4th respondent is charging excessive tariff from its consumers. The second grievance AJN PIL119.06 2 is that the 1st respondent has not permitted the petitioner to change over from the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, as of today, the petitioner has changed over to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is no longer affected by the alleged excessive tariff charged by the 4th respondent. A statement is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that personal grievance of the petitioner to that effect does not survive. 2. It is, however, contended that public interest is affected inasmuch as a newspaper report, copy of which is annexed to this petition at Ex-G indicates that respondent 1 – MERC has ordered a probe against respondent 4 to inquire into and ensure that expenses of other businesses have not been passed on by it to the consumers and also to ensure that the assets being reported under its regulated business are actually and physically existing and are being used for the benefit of the 4th respondent's business. We must note that this statement is made on the basis of a newspaper report. No prayer is made on this count. This goes beyond AJN PIL119.06 3 the scope of the petition. Besides, we are unable to take cognizance of such newspaper report. 3. So far as the grievance about the order dated 15/10/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is concerned, since the said order can be challenged under Section 111 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the said grievance cannot be dealt in writ jurisdiction. In any case, as the petitioner has now changed over to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the alleged excessive tariff of the 4th respondent. 4. The petition is disposed of. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.V. MORE, J.]