1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W. P. No. 3731 of 2008. Priyadarshan Chandrashekhar Madkholkar & others v The State of Maharashtra and others. appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram and Registrar's orders. Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader for R-1. Shri R. K. Deshpande, Advocate for R-2 to 4. Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and Smt. V. A. Naik, JJ. Dated : 17th December, 2008. We have heard Mr. Bhandarkar, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners who have filed this petition in public interest. The petitioner no.1 is the learned member of the Bar and the petitioner no. 2 & 3 are the businessmen, whereas the Petitioner no.4 is the Chief Reporter of daily 'Hitavada'. 2 The prayers in this petition read as under: (A) Direct the respondent No.2 Maharashtra State Electricity Holding Company and respondent No.3 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company to furnish details regarding action undertaken in pursuance of execution of 7 Memorandums of Understanding entered into for creation of new Power Generation Plants and in furtherance of the same, be pleased to direct them to act in strict adherence thereof, and further be pleased to; (B) direct the respondent No.5 Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission to initiate appropriate action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the officials of respondent No.4 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited for acting in derogation of “Load Shedding Protocol” issued by Respondent No.5 Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and further be pleased to: (C) hold that the action of respondent No.4 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited of enhancing the hours of “load shedding” is 3 without jurisdiction and authority and being in derogation of “Load Shedding Protocol” issued by respondent No.5 Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and further be pleased to; (D) direct the respondent No.4 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited not to initiate “Excessive Load Shedding” than the “Prescribed Load Shedding Protocol” with immediate effect and further be pleased to; (E) direct the respondent No.4 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited not to resort to “load shedding” in vicinage of 25 kms. Of Power Generation Plants in Vidarbha Region and further be pleased to; (F) direct the respondent Companies to submit Action Taking Report as regards recovery of arrears from the defaulters which are in the range of more than Rupees 10000 Crores and further be pleased to; (G) direct the respondent Companies to take immediate and urgent measures as regards recovery of arrears from defaulters and further be pleased to; 4 (H) direct the respondent Companies to produce on record the Action Taking Report or the measures they have undertaken for curtailing electricity thefts all over the State and also be pleased to direct them to initiate stringent and strict measures while dealing the cases of electricity theft and energy pilferage and further be pleased to; (I) direct the inquiry into the supply of sub-standard coal by Western Coalfields Limited to respondent No.3 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company and in furtherance of the same, be pleased to direct them to take urgent and appropriate measures for improvisation of supply of quality of coal, make their staff accountable for performance, and also further issue the directions to the respondent No.3 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company to take immediate assistance of National Thermal Power Corporation for improving the Plant Load factor and further be pleased to; (J) direct the respondent Companies to take immediate action as regards 100 percent metering in rural areas forthwith and further be pleased to; 5 (K) direct the respondent No.4 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited to take recourse to load management charge and in furtherance of the same, direct them to introduce the measures as regards curtailment of extravagant use of energy in Shopping Malls, Multiplexes, Air-Conditioned Show Rooms, etc. and further be pleased to; (L) grant any other suitable relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case and further be pleased to; (M) allow the Petition with costs and saddle the cost of the Petition on the respondents.” [Quoted from page 30 to 33 of Writ Petition Paper Book] It was submitted by Mr. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that prayer clause (A), (F), (G) & (J) cannot be considered by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act 2003, (the Act for short). We are, therefore, required to consider whether the petition can be entertained for prayers (A), (F), (G) & 6 (J). Mr. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to prayer clause (I) for causing an enquiry into the supply of Coal by M/s WCL to Respondent No.3, and it was alleged that it is a sub standard coal being supplied. Civil Application No.9172 of 2008 which was filed for amendment of the petition memo based on the agreement of coal supply has been rejected by us today, and for the said reasons, the said prayer cannot be considered. So far as prayer clause (A) is concerned, it relates to 7 different Memorandums of Understanding entered for creation of new Power Generation Plants, and the petitioners pray for directions to the Respondent no.2 Maharashtra State Electricity Holding Company and the Respondent No.3 to furnish the same, and for further directions to these Companies to act in strict adherence thereto. Para (F) of Prayer Clause prays for directions to the Respondent Companies to submit an action taken 7 report as regards the recovery of arrears from the defaulters and Para (G) prays for directions for immediate and urgent measures as regards recovery of arrears. Whereas in Para (J), the petitioners pray for direction to take immediate action as regards 100% metering in rural areas forthwith. Mr. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly conceded that so far as the issue of metering in rural areas is concerned, the MERC has already given directions, but they are not acted upon. If that be so, the MERC has powers under Section 142 to take appropriate steps, and it is not the case of the petitioners that such an application was moved before the MERC, by them. On the issue of recovery of arrears, it is undoubtedly the responsibility of the Distribution Company i. e. Respondent No.4 to take due steps, and we do not see any prima facie material pointing out that there is total inaction on the part of the Respondent No.4 in this regard. So far as the Memorandums of Understanding 8 entered into for creation of new power generation plants are concerned, it is obviously the matter between the parties to agreements or Memorandums of Understanding, and the prayer made is so vague that it virtually expects this Court to make a roving enquiry into all these agreements. This cannot be done specially when there is no material on record even to prima facie accept that the agreements are not being acted upon, and if the agreements are not acted upon, the parties aggrieved will have the built in measures in the agreement itself for redressal. So far as the other prayers relating to inadequate electricity supply, load shedding, uniform distribution of load shedding schedule, regulating load shedding schedules etc., are concerned, the petitioners have an effective remedy to approach the Commission and in any case the Commission has passed an order on 28-11-2008 in this regard. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no case made out to entertain this petition in public interest, and 9 the petitioners would serve better public interest if they approach the Commission by filing an application under Section 142 of the Act, in case they are satisfied that the directions given by the Commission are not being implemented by the Respondents no.3 & 4. We make it clear that if the petitioners approach the Commission or any other competent forum, all the intentions on merit are left open. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/