1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6417 OF 2009 Yuraj Shamrao Jadhav : Petitioner versus Shri Hanumant Nana Jadhav (Barvate) and ors. : Respondents. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for the Petitioner. Mr.A H Palekar for the Respondent No.10. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 4th August 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at length. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking mandamus to initiate disciplinary action against the Respondent Nos.12 to 24 and other delinquent employees and/or officers who are responsible for granting the illegal electricity connection to Respondent No.1 via land owned by the Petitioner. Thus, the grievance of the Petitioner appears to be that the Respondents cannot lay down electricity lines through his land unless the permission from the Petitioner is taken. 2 2. We need not go into the merits of this aspect. But what is important to be noted is that the Respondent No.1 has already filed a civil suit seeking an injunction as against the present Petitioner and the civil court has passed an order under Order 39, Rules, 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting the Petitioner from obstructing the electricity connection of the Respondent No.1. Initially the said Application was rejected by the trial Court but the appeal which was preferred under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Court has been allowed and the Petitioner has now preferred a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before a learned Single Judge of this Court which is pending. In view of the aforesaid facts, the above Petition filed for seeking relief against the Respondents/Officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The entire attempt is to see that having lost in the civil litigation now to pressurise the officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd to effect disconnection, so that civil court’s order is directly circumvented by the order of this Court. In fact Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules 1960 permits petition to be filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the grounds which are raised in the above Petition could have 3 been raised to show that the order passed by the Appellate Court against the Petitioner is not sustainable in law. However, whether such a point could be raised would depend upon the reply filed to the Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Petitioner. 3. Under these circumstances, we find that the above Petition, as filed, is not tenable in law. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore submitted before this Court that in case the Petition pending before the Single Judge is allowed in the favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner may make a request to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd to disconnect the electric connection of the Respondent No.1 and in that circumstances if the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd is not accepting the request of the Petitioner, the Petitioner can approach this Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore makes a statement before this Court that the Petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the above Petition with liberty to approach this Court if occasion arises. 4. Since we have found that the above Petition is not tenable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we grant leave to 4 withdraw the Petition with liberty to approach this Court if the occasion arises viz. If the writ petition before the Single Judge is allowed and if thereafter request is made to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd to disconnect the connection of the Respondent No.1 and if the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd refuses to do that, then the Petitioner can approach this Court and/or any other statutory forum provided under the Electricity Act. 5. We make it clear that if a statutory forum is available to the Petitioner then this order itself will not be sufficient to show that the Petition is tenable before this Court. In that situation we may not entertain the said Petition that would be filed because an alternate remedy is available. In that event, the Petitioner shall approach this Court only after exhausting the remedy which is available in law. The above Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]