{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2932 OF 2009 M/s Amit Products (India) Ltd., & Another PETITIONERS VERSUS The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.G.Aney, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Atul Karad, for petitioners Mr.S.M.Godsay, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE :29th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioners pray for holding and declaring that the disconnection of power supply dated 25.02.2008 by the respondents, is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The petitioners also pray for directing the respondents i.e. distribution company, to grant suitable installment of entire arrears of amounts to the petitioners company in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, which is annexed to the petition at Exhibit-E. Certain other reliefs are also sought, {2} which are in the nature of ad interim relief. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioners had challenged the disconnection of the electric supply, by filing writ petition No. 3053/2008 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court issued Rule in the said petition and passed certain directions in respect of payment of the arrears of the electricity charges and on such conditions, in respect of the payment being made by the petitioners, the electric supply was to be restored. We may, at this juncture, usefully reproduce the observations of the Division Bench of this Court from para No.3 to 10. “3. After hearing the parties, we find that on appropriation of the bank guarantee amount, there is due and payable approximately a sum of RPS.3 crores 55 lakhs. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that they have dispute over the same amount. That dispute can be raised with respondent No.1 and which can be independently decided irrespective of order that has been passed by this court today. 4. The petitioners herein within 15 days from today will deposit with respondent No.1 towards arrears an amount of Rs.One crore. On such amount being deposited, respondent No.1 to reconnect the electric connection and commence supply to the petitioners provided petitioners furnish to the respondent No.1, a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.82 lakhs and reconnection charges if any. 5. The approximate balance of Rs.2.55 crores will be paid in eight equal monthly installments. The {3} installment would be paid on the petitioners being served by respondent No.1 the monthly bills. 6. It is made clear that installments payable monthly will be paid in terms of the date shown in the bill for payment of the bill amount. Any default in such payment or of the monthly bill will result in respondents entitled to disconnect the electric supply forthwith and recalling of this order. 7. The issue of challenge to the circular dated 29-09-2005 is left open for consideration, if it arises in any other proceedings. 8. Any dispute in the matter of any specific amount due and payable shall be raised by the petitioners with respondent No.1, who shall independently decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. . We further make it clear that no installment will be withheld on the ground that a dispute has been raised. If any amount on the decision taken by respondent No. 1, on the dispute raised by the petitioners is allowed, it will be adjusted against the future monthly bills. 9. Learned counsel for the parties brings to our attention Regulation 6.5 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation, 2005. In terms of the said Regulation, if the consumer remains disconnected for a period of more than six months, the agreement shall be deemed to be terminated. In the instant case, it was pointed that as on today, more than six months have been elapsed. 10. In our opinion, Regulation 6.5 would not apply in this case. The petitioner had filed the present petition on 16-04-2008. This court directed notice to {4} issue on 17-04-2008. On 24-04-2008 further order was made by this court. In other words, this court was seized of the matter. The petitioner have come to this court for reconnection before expiry of six months from the disconnection of power supply. Considering the above, Regulation 6.5 would not apply in this case. Respondents are therefore directed to grant reconnection to the petitioner on the facts of the present case.” 3. It appears that the respondent Distribution Company, challenged the aforesaid judgment, by filing Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which special leave petition came to be dismissed. 4. The present petition has been filed virtually on the same cause of action on the basis of which the earlier petition was filed. It is sought to be urged before us, on behalf of the petitioners, that during interregnum i.e. after filing of the earlier petition and before the present petition, special civil suit No.25/2009 has been filed by the respondents, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna wherein the respondent Distribution Company has set up a claim for Rs.4,13,30,220/-. It is urged before us, on behalf of the petitioners, that institution of the aforesaid suit, therefore, would entitle this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court, rendered in writ petition No.3053/2008. 5. We have heard Mr.S.G.Aney, learned senior counsel for {5} the petitioners, who urged before us that in the light of the institution of the aforesaid civil suit, this Court may consider granting the relief to the petitioners, which was granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6467/2005, which had been filed challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Mr.Aney, learned senior Counsel has invited our attention to the directions issued by the Supreme Court for restoration of the electric supply, on certain terms, which also included payment to be made monthly by the petitioner and had also directed the expeditious disposal of the civil suit, which was pending. It is, therefore, urged before us that, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court may pass similar order passed by the Supreme Court. 6. We are unable to agree with the submissions advanced before us by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment rendered on 19th September 2008 in writ petition No.3053/2008, had decided the aforesaid petition by putting the petitioner to certain terms and conditions. The petitioners could not fulfill the aforesaid terms and conditions. Consequent thereto, the electric supply has not been restored to the petitioners. Mere institution or filing of the suit subsequently, would not entitle this Court to take a view different from the terms and conditions imposed by the Court earlier. We are further informed that the aforesaid judgment of this Court rendered in writ petition No.3053/2008, dated 19th September {6} 2008, has attained finality as challenge at the behest of the respondents, came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. 7. For the reasons, afore stated, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition, which is sans merits, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, Mr.Aney, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, states that this Court may permit the petitioners to abide by the terms and conditions as set out by the order of the Division Bench, adverted to above. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, rendered in writ petition No.3053/2009 dated 19.09.2008, the Division Bench had, at para 4, imposed a condition of 15 days for the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions. Since the period having expired and no application having been filed for extension or renewal of the said direction, according to us, the petitioners are not entitled to ask this Court for issuing any direction. Any way, since that is not the subject matter of this petition, we refrain from expressing any opinion in that respect of the matter. Petition is dismissed accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp2932-09