1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7895 OF 2009 Anil Vitthalrao Patil .. Petitioner (Org.Plaintiff) Versus Executive Engineer & Anr. .. Respondents (Org.Defendants) -- Shri Tushar Sonawane for the Petitioner. Smt. A.R.S. Baxi for Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PC. . The submissions of the parties were heard on the earlier date. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Original Defendants. A challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 6th July, 2009 passed by the trial Court below application at Exhibit-60. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions of the parties, it will be necessary to refer to some of facts of the case. 3. A suit is filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, for a declaration that 2 a bill dated 10th December, 2003 issued by the Respondents was illegal. Various other consequential reliefs have been claimed in the suit. The Petitioner has taken supply of electrical energy from the Respondents. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made at Exhibit-5 by the Petitioner. On 25th February, 2004, ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Petitioner was granted subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.39,750/- on or before 27th February, 2004. According to the Petitioner, the said order was complied with. The suit filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the District Court in which the application for interim relief was made. On the said application for interim relief, the District Court granted interim relief restraining the Respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Petitioner till the decision of the Appeal on condition of the Petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears within a period of 15 days from the date of the said order. Thereafter, the appeal was partly allowed and the order of remand of the suit was passed. 4. An application was made by the Petitioner at Exhibit-60 stating therein that the electric supply to the premises of the Petitioner has been disconnected on 20th March, 2009. A prayer in the said application was for restoration of the electric supply. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted 3 that the compliance of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court by depositing 50% of the amount of energy charges was made by the Petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tendered an undertaking of the Petitioner on record of this Writ Petition. He submitted that out of arrears of electricity bill of Rs.1,68,300/- payable by the Petitioner as of today, a sum of Rs.54,000/- has already been deposited by the Petitioner with the District Court. He pointed out that in the undertaking, the Petitioner has stated that he will deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the office of the Respondents within a period of two weeks from 5th February, 2010 and he will give bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.64,300/- of any nationalized bank within a period of three weeks from 5th February, 2010. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents did not dispute that as of January, 2010, the amount payable by the Petitioner was Rs.1,68,300/-, out of which, the sum of Rs.54,000/- has already been deposited with the District Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that supply of electricity will be restored provided the entire balance amount is deposited by the Petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. Out of the amount of Rs.1,68,300/-, the sum of Rs.54,000/- has already been deposited by the Petitioner with the District Court. The Petitioner has given the undertaking dated 5th February, 2010 stating therein that he will deposit a 4 sum of Rs.50,000/- with the office of the Respondents within a period of two weeks from 5th February, 2010 and will furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank in the sum of Rs.64,300/- within a period of three weeks from 5th February, 2010. The suit is pending. If the Petitioner complies with the undertaking, the Respondents will be adequately protected. It is obvious that even if the supply is restored, the Petitioner will have to pay current regular bill and future bills. If any default is committed, it will be open for the Respondents to disconnect the supply of electricity. 8. Hence, I pass following order. (a) The impugned order dated 6th July, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Respondents are permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.54,000/- deposited by the Petitioner with the District Court. (c) The undertaking contained in the affidavit of the Petitioner dated 5th February, 2010 placed on record of this Writ Petition is accepted. The affidavit is marked “X” for identification. (d) If the Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the 5 office of the Respondents within a period of two weeks from 5th February, 2010, the Respondents shall forthwith restore the supply of electricity to the premises of the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall file before the Trial Court, a bank guarantee of any nationalised bank in the sum of Rs.64,300/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bank guarantee shall be filed within a period of three weeks from 5th February, 2010. (e) If the Petitioner fails to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.64,300/- within a period of three weeks in terms of the undertaking dated 5th February, 2010 to the satisfaction of the trial Court, it will be open for the Respondents to forthwith disconnect the supply of electrical energy to the Petitioner’s premises without notice to the Petitioner. (f) If compliance is made by depositing the aforesaid amount and by furnishing bank guarantee as aforesaid, the supply of electricity to the Petitioner’s premises shall not be disconnected till the disposal of the suit subject to condition that the Petitioner will keep on paying the bills issued by the Respondents regularly and 6 punctually. In case any default is made by the Petitioner in payment of bills within the stipulated time, it will be open for the Respondents to disconnect the electric supply of the petitioner’s premises. (g) The Petition is partly allowed in above terms. (h) It is made clear that all contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open and interim arrangement in this order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties. (A.S.OKA, J) ash/