-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3516 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus Vithoba Mogalappa Pogul & Anr. ..Respondents. Ms. Sweeta Sharma i/b M. V. Kini & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palkar for respondent no.1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 29, 2011. P. C. : 1. By the impugned order, the learned Member of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has directed the petitioner to grant electricity connection to respondent no.1 in terms of application dated 3/5/2010 of respondent no.1. Father of the 1st respondent was the owner of plot of land bearing Survey No.154. In the year 1986, said plot of land was divided in 8 parts and they were numbered as Survey Nos.152/1 to 152/8. Respondent no.1 is concerned with Survey No.152/5 only. Mr. Palekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 repeated and re-iterated this contention before me. He submitted that save and except Survey No.152/5, respondent no.1 has no concern with other Survey numbers. 2. The unit by the name “Samarth Processing” was being run in srp -: 2 :- Survey No.152/5. So far this unit is concerned, arrears of electricity charges were Rs.1,07,905/-, and those arrears have already been paid by respondent no.1. Receipt to that effect is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1. In that view of the matter, respondent no.1 in accordance with the policy of the petitioner is entitled to fresh electricity connection, which the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has directed the petitioner to grant to respondent no.1. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, in support her contentions, relied upon the Apex Court judgment in Paschimancahl Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs. M/s. DVS Steels & Alloyes Pvt. Ltd and Ors [AIR 2009 SC 647]. This judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the 1st respondent has specifically stated that he has no concern with the other plots except Plot No.152/5, and he has already paid arrears of electricity charges. In above circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)