1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.63 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.87 OF 2009 Yashwant Ratilal Sanghrajkar ..Petitioner. Vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. N.V. Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. Satish Kamat for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th July, 2009. P.C. : 1. The contempt that is alleged is of the order dated 3rd February, 2009 passed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that it was appropriate for the Petitioner to invoke the remedy of an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act 2003. While relegating the Petitioner to the remedy of an appeal, the Division Bench directed that the Petitioner shall deposit 1/3rd of the bill amount of Rs.2,66,520.66 and on depositing the amount electricity shall be restored. 2 The grievance of the Petitioner is that electricity has not been restored despite deposit of the amount. 2. A reply has been filed to the Contempt Petition. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that the Petition before the Division Bench questioned a final assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 for unauthorized use of electricity for the period from 10th December, 2004 to 12th October, 2006. On the request of the Petitioner made at the time of the hearing of the assessment a new meter came to be installed and electric supply was restored. During the months of February and October 2007 the current bills amounted to Rs.1,16,836.84 and since the Petitioner failed to pay the aforesaid amount the supply was disconnected on 15th June, 2007. In other words, the contention of the Respondents is that the subject matter of the Petition before the Division Bench was the order of final assessment for the period between 10th October, 2004 and 1st October, 2006. The direction passed by the Division Bench did not absolve the Petitioner of his liability to pay the current bills. 3 3. For the purposes of these proceedings it is not necessary for the Court to go into the issues which arise in any great detail since the Petitioner has stated that he would be challenging the current bills that were issued for the period between February and October 2007 as well. Counsel appearing for the Respondents stated on instructions that in the event that the Petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the total amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- which are the up to date outstandings and reconnection charges within a period of one week from today, supply shall be reconnected subject to such final orders as may be passed in the event that the Petitioner files an appeal against the bills for the aforesaid period. In view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Respondents, the Petitioner does not press the Contempt Petition which shall accordingly stand disposed of. *****