1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3769/2010 Executive Engineer, Urban Division M.S.E.D. C.o. Ltd. Vs. Ashok K. Agrawal and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. R. E. Moharir, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Fulzele, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010. The matter was heard on earlier occasion and was adjourned today to enable Advocate Moharir to point out why three connections in the name of three brothers could not be released. Advocate Moharir is seeking time to place that material on record. His request is rejected. The matter is heard. Advocate Moharir states that in view of provisions of Section 126 (5) of Electricity Act 2003(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) respondent no.1, who has used the supply for construction purposes is unauthorised user and hence has to pay penalty at twice rate as required by Rules. He has also invited attention to the fact that it was disclosed to Electrical Inspector that the unit in charge Shri Gorale visited the cite personally 2 and found that only one electric connection could have been then released as some additional infrastructure was necessary for releasing the remaining two connections. According to Advocate Moharir, Electrical Inspector has also found that supply obtained was for domestic purposes and it was used for construction purpose. Learned Counsel argues that this itself is sufficient to attract provisions of Section 126 (5) of the Act. Learned AGP has urged that spot inspection report prepared by Shri Gorale reveals that all three plots were open. According to learned AGP electric supply on open plots could have been issued only for temporary purposes and could have subjected to tariff applicable to temporary category. He contends that domestic supply could not have been released on such open plot. With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order nowhere records finding that domestic supply could not have been released on open plot. It is noticed that plots were open and the consumer did not suppress anything. Reliance is placed upon the inspection report to gather that consumer did not suppress anything does not prima facie appears to be just and proper. The consumer had applied for release of domestic connection and it was accordingly released. The nature of connection 3 released is not in dispute and purpose for which it has been used is also not in dispute. However, till the legal provisions in this respect are looked into by respondent no.2 Electrical Inspector in the light of facts coming on record nothing can be said with finally. Respondent no.1 has chosen not to appear though he is served with notice for final disposal. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by quashing and setting aside the order of Respondent no.2 dated 5.12.2009 and by directing him to decide Appeal No. 4/2009 afresh in accordance with law after giving parties necessary opportunities. Only for the said purpose that order is quashed and set aside. The Electrical Inspector shall pass appropriate order as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2011. Rule is made absolute. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar