1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1404 OF 2008 Inamullah Mohd.Yusuf Kasam .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Abhay Pande for petitioner Mr.R.J.More, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.D.S.Sakhalkar i/b. Manjusha Kumbhar for respondent No.2 Mr.Mukesh Subramaniam for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th June 2008 P.C. . The petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Forum of Reliance Energy Ltd. on 27th August 2007 with a grievance that he is residing at Faridkhan Chawl, Andheri (West), S.V.Road, Mumbai 400 008. He is residing there since 1970, allegedly as a tenant and has all 2 documents to prove his possession and occupation. 2. One Niyaz Ali was his neighbour. He was sharing electricity connection with his neighbour, the said Niyaz Ali. The electric meter was also in the name of said Niyaz Ali. In May 2005, the said Niyaz Ali sold the room occupied by him and that room now is demolished by the Builder. It is the case of petitioner that while transferring/selling the room the said Niyaz Ali gave no objection for transfer of electricity meter and he has also given affidavit dated 11th May 2005 to that effect so that the transfer could be effected in the name of petitioner. The Electric Company demanded various documents. It also did not take any steps pursuant to the NOC and ultimately the power supply was disconnected. There are complaints made but there is no redressal of the grievances and that is how the forum was approached. 3 3. There is a reply filed on behalf of Reliance Energy Ltd. It has very clearly stated that there is no question of now restoring connection of Niyaz Ali. The premises are already demolished. However, if the petitioner desires fresh electric connection, it would be necessary to lay down separate underground service cable upto petitioner’s premises, which requires duly filled in way leave Form, by the landlord and the petitioner. Until this form is produced and all requirements are satisfied, there is no question of electric supply being restored or granted. 4. The matter was thereafter taken by the petitioner in an appeal to the Electricity Ombudsman. The Ombudsman confirmed the order of the Redressal Committee and dismissed the appeal. That is how this petition. 4 5. I had issued notice to respondent No.3 M/s.M.K.Builders and Developers. Its Counsel Mr.Subramaniam is present before me. He reiterates his case before the Ombudsman that the petitioner is an illegal and unauthorised occupant and has no right in the premises. Respondent No.3 desires to take proceedings against him in an appropriate/competent Court and, therefore, has serious objection to any order being passed with regard to restoration or grant of electricity connection. However, Mr.Subramanium submits that respondent No.3 has no objection to the request of the petitioner being granted subject of course, this Court protecting its rights and remedies. Affidavit in reply is filed by Reliance Energy and Mr.Sakhalkar has stated that the way leave form which is only signed by the petitioner with indemnity bond is not acceptable. The indemnity bond is no fulfilment of the requirement and it must be signed by the landlord/owner and in this 5 case M/s.M.K.Builders and until that is done, the company cannot grant electric connection. However, if the same is duly filled in, the application will be considered by respondent No.2. 6. After hearing both sides and perusing the pleadings with their assistance, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if the respondent No.2 is directed to grant electricity connection to the petitioner provided the petitioner produces the way leave form duly signed by him and completes other requirements or formalities. As far as signature of respondent No.3 is concerned, respondent No.3 is at liberty to sign the same and forward it and even if the same is signed and duly forwarded, it would not be construed as respondent No.3 having given up its legal rights and contentions. The signature would be without prejudice to the said rights and the respondent No.3 can initiate such 6 proceedings assert to its right, title and interest in the property as it is advised. The petitioner to forward the way Leave Form duly signed by him, within two weeks from today. The petitioner to forward the form to respondent No.3 and the signature of respondent No.3 thereon shall be without prejudice to its legal rights and contentions. The respondent No.3 cannot prove its title to the property and assert its rights in the proceedings. However, if respondent No.3 refuses to sign it, then respondent No.2 shall proceed on the basis of the Indemnity forwarded by the petitioner and consider the petitioner’s case for grant of electricity connection to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to state that grant of such electricity connection by laying the service cable through the property of respondent No.3 would not be construed as respondent No.3 having agreed to this arrangement and the cable should pass through without in any 7 manner affecting the rights and contentions of respondent No.3. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 7. Needless to state that if the respondent No.3 does not sign the form, there is no question of respondent No.3, obstructing the Respondent No.2 for laying cable through its property and such an act, in addition to being construed as an offnce under the relevant statute, would also be construed as violation of the orders and directions of this Court and interfering with the course of justice. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)