wp308.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.308 OF 2009 Ratnaprabha Sugars Limited, “Purna” Flat No.1101, Worli Sugar, CHS Ltd., 68-69, Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 025, Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Pandit Desai. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Cooperation & Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Commissioner for Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune, Directorate of Sugar, Sakhar Bhawan, Shivajinagar, Pune, Dist-Pune, 3) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited, MSEDCL Organization & Maintenance Circle, Vidyut Bhavan, Parbhani, Dist-Parbhani, Through its Superintending Engineer, 4) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited, Pathi Office, Pathri, Dist-Parbhani Through its Assistant Engineer, wp308.09 2 5) Liquidator/Collector, Parbhani, For Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Devnandra, Tq-Pathri, Dist-Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.P.R. Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.S.V. Mundhe Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Petitioner contends that in auction proceedings held on 7th January 2004, liquidated Sugar Factory, namely, Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Devnandra, Tq-Pathri, Dist-Parbhani was purchased by the Petitioner. The auction was confirmed by the State Government on wp308.09 3 10th February, 2004. The Petitioner thereafter applied for new electricity connection. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not grant new electricity connection. Therefore the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that in the light of the provisions of Regulation 10.5 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 (for short 'Regulations of 2005') and the Commercial Circular No.53, the Petitioner ought to have applied in the prescribed format in the prescribed manner. As the Petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated in Regulations of 2005, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not grant application of the Petitioner for new electricity connection. 4. Shri. P.R. Patil, learned counsel for the wp308.09 4 Petitioner has referred to the Judgment in the case of Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 648. The learned counsel has also placed on record a simple copy of the Judgment and Order dated 16th September, 2011 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Bombay (CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.9906 of 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that subject to the issue in respect of liability of the auction purchaser to pay electricity dues of the earlier owner/occupier/licensee of the subject premises, the Petitioner would file appropriate application with Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in tune with Regulation 10.5 of Regulations of 2005. The counsel for Petitioner submits that the issue whether Regulations of 2005 are applicable to the Petitioner, be kept open. wp308.09 5 6. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that in view of the fact that the Petitioner's auction purchase got confirmation by the State in the year 2008, the issue does not call for any adjudication. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that issue in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2005 is subject matter of S.L.P. No.10732 of 2006 and S.L.P. No.6068 of 2006 before the Apex Court. 7. We have perused the Judgments cited before us and considered the submissions advanced. In case the Petitioner prefers an application for new electricity connection in accordance with Regulation 10.5 of the Regulations of 2005, then we direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to pass appropriate orders in view of the Regulations of 2005, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application filed by the Petitioner and communicate the decision to the Petitioner. The wp308.09 6 Petitioner would file necessary undertaking in respect of the Circular No.53. 8. We have not addressed the issue raised by the Petitioner in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2005 to the Petitioner's case. 9. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11