1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18385 OF 2010 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO.8105 OF 2009 The Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & anr. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS The Registrar (Judicial) & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S. M. Godsay, Advocate for the applicants; Mrs M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate (amicus curiae) for respondent no.1 Mr N.R. Shaikh, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd December, 2010 PER COURT : By this application the applicants/original respondents in Writ Petition No.8105 of 2009 seek modification of the judgment of this Court by extending the time from December, 2010 to December, 2011 for implementation of (Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana) in rural areas for the persons belonging to Below Poverty Line class. 2 2. It appears that this Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.8105 of 2009 had made Rule absolute on the basis of the statement made by the respondents in their affidavit in reply that by December, 2010 electrical connections would be provided to the remaining households whose number was mentioned in the affidavit in reply. We had also accepted the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 3. In the present application, the applicants i.e. original respondents to the writ petition have pointed out several difficulties in the way of the respondents in adhering to the time schedule specified by them in their affidavit in reply. In fact, it is stated before us that in the last about four months one lac new electrical connections have been provided and out of the total figure of more than 13 lacs, only 4,12,885 households remained to be provided with the electrical connections. It is further stated before us that some of the persons are residing in remote areas and the applicants would be required to make the basic infrastructural facilities available before electrical connection could be provided. In the light of these difficulties which are expressed before us, the applicants pray that the time limit be extended till December, 2011. 4. We have heard Mrs M.D. Thube-Mhase, learned amicus curiae who was representing the petitioner in the petition and Shri Satish Godsay, learned Counsel representing the applicants. We have also perused the application filed by the present applicants. In the light of the 3 difficulties expressed by the applicants, according to us extension as prayed for deserves to be granted. 5. Accordingly, we allow this application and grant the extension as prayed for in the application. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/ca18385.10