1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9435 OF 2009 Kumar Resort and Amusement Pvt.Ltd. : Petitioners versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd and ors. : Respondents. Mr. S P Kanuga for the Petitioner. Ms. Pooja Thorat i/by M/s. M V Kini & Co. for the Respondents CORAM : A M KHANWILKAR & R M SAVANT, JJ DATED : 05th April 2010 P.C. 1. The basis on which this Petition proceeds is that the assumption of the department that the Petitioner had indulged in theft is erroneous. The finding recorded by the concerned authority is that the Petitioner was responsible for theft and also of unauthorised pilferage of electricity. This being a disputed question of fact cannot be addressed in writ jurisdiction. 2. Realising this position, the counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would withdraw this Petition with liberty to file a suit for seeking appropriate reliefs as may be advised. 2 3. In the circumstances, We allow the Petitioner to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file a suit for such reliefs as may be advised, which will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 4. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the dispute as to whether the Petitioner had in fact indulged in theft is already sub-judice in criminal action pending against the Petitioner. For that reason, no liberty be given to the Petitioner to file a suit in lieu of the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition. 5. We are not impressed by this argument. The proceedings in criminal action against the Petitioner cannot be the basis to denude the Petitioner from adopting civil remedy if available to the Petitioner in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly this Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner as aforesaid. 7. All questions are left open to be decided on its own merits. 8. The Petitioner has already deposited Rs.Eight lakhs as against the demand of Rs.Twenty Lakhs on the basis of which status quo order was passed by this Court. We continue the order of status quo for a period of two weeks from today to enable the 3 Petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court as may be advised. 8. It will be open to the Petitioner to apply to the Civil Court for appropriate interim relief in the said proceedings, which application will have to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that this Court had granted order of status quo. 9. We make it clear that it will be open to the Civil Court to consider the question as to whether the Petitioner should be directed to deposit further amount by way of condition for grant of interim relief or for continuation of the order of status quo, as the case may be . All aspects in that behalf are left open. (R M SAVANT, J.) (A M KHANWILKAR, J)