1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. 1. W.P.No. 2098/2005 ( Shri Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal and another. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) 2. W.P.No. 6395/2005 Shri Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.A. Gordey, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.W.Sambre, G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. S.V.Purohit, Adv. for respondent no.2 in W.P.No.6395/05 and for respondent no.4 in W.p.No.2098/05. Mr. R.K.Deshpande & Mr. R.E. Moharir for M.S.E.B. Mr. Ravi Prakash & Mr. Arun S. Agrawal, Adv. for MSEDCL. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel for the petitioners and in both these petitions a common cause relating to the loss suffered by the agriculture sector on account of load shedding has been espoused and the petitioners pray for directions to take necessary steps for generating more power so as to cater to the needs of the citizens or in the alternate direct the State Government and the power generating as well as distribution company 2 to effect equitable distribution and implementation of the load shedding through the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners also pray for a restraining order against the respondents for not effecting and implementing load shedding in the rural areas. In W.P.No. 6395/05 prayer clause (a) has not been pressed for. 2. In these petitions, orders have been passed from time to time and the M.E.R.C. has also heard some applications filed before it and decided the issues of load shedding, distribution of power supply and the related issues. Public Interest Litigation Petition No. 17/07 was filed before the Principal Bench of this Court for the similar reliefs namely issuance of writ of mandamus in the form of declaration that the load shedding in the State of Maharashtra is illegal, unconstitutional and the respondents who are responsible for supplying electricity were acting in illegal and discriminatory manner. This court by its order dated 15.3.2007 dismissed the petition with liberty to seek alternative remedy and in para no. 2 of the said order it has been stated as under: “We find that the M.E.R.C. which is an expert body has already dealt with the said matter and if the 3 petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the M.E.R.C., it will be appropriate that he prefers an appeal against the order of M.E.R.C. before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. “ 3. As the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy in the matter, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The M.E. R.C. has passed orders on 3.8.2005, 27.10.2005 and the latest being the order dated 20th November, 2008 in Case Nos. 77/08 and 78/08 by invoking powers under Section 23 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 86 of the said Act deals with the functions of the State Commission and undoubtedly, the State Commission is an expert body which is guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan and Tariff Policy to be framed under Section 3, in discharging of its function under the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the order passed by the Regulatory Commission is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal for electricity. By its order dated 20.11.2008 the M.E.R.C. has dealt with the issue of load shedding and the schedule submitted by the M.S.E.D.C.L. has been rejected. It also rejected the request of the 4 Electricity Distribution Company to formulate additional tariff for the Divisional Commissioner Headquarter. 4. Having gone through this order dated 20.11.2008, we are satisfied that the M.E.R.C. was seized of the issues more particularly relating in these petitions and as observed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 17/07 the M.E.R.C. being an expert body it would be appropriate that if the petitioners have any grievance even as of now they will have to approach the M.E.R.C. or any other appropriate authority under the Electricity Act. 5. Hence, the petitions are disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to approach the M.E.R.C. if so advised. JUDGE JUDGE patle.