1 LPA.98/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1963 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2010 Rajaratna Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. Superintendent Engineer, (S.U.R.C.), M.S.E.B. & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for Applicant. None for the respondents. ­­­ CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1] Though served, none appears for the respondents. Though we have waited for some time, none appears for the respondents. 2] What is challenged in this appeal is the interlocutory order dated 11.3.2010 of the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the appellant is required to deposit entire amount of final electricity bill by the respondent­company to the tune of Rs.22,03,796/­ which is on the basis of theft of electricity. 2 LPA.98/2010 3] Aggrieved by the above electricity bill, the appellant filed the appeal before respondent no.2­ the Chief Engineer (KOPZ), Kolhapur. The contention raised by the appellant is that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant is required to predeposit 25% of bill amount, and appeal was decided exparte. The appellant has accordingly challenged that order in the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to deposit entire balance amount in this Court, after giving credit to the part payment made earlier, failing which writ petition will stand dismissed. The learned Single Judge further directed that after deposit of the entire amount, the respondent­company shall not disconnect the appellant’s electricity supply. 4] Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant­consumer in appeal, mainly contended that when the appellant made grievance about the exparte order of the Chief Engineer, the appellant ought not to have been directed to deposit the full final amount. 5] Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and in absence of opposition from the respondents, we are of the view that since the appellant’s grievance is against the exparte decision of the Chief Engineer, and appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/­ as against the final bill of about Rs.25,00,000/­, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant deserves to be granted another chance to appear before the Chief Engineer, and argue the appeal on merits. 3 LPA.98/2010 6] In the result, the appeal is allowed, with the following orders:­ The impugned order dated 11.3.2010 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order of the Chief Engineer dated 5.5.2009 is also set aside and the appellant’s appeal against the final electricity bill dated 12.4.2004 is restored to file. The Chief Engineer is directed to hear the said appeal on merits after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing, for which a notice shall be sent to the appellant at the address mentioned in the cause title of the memo of appeal which is stated to be the same as shown in the cause title of the petition. 7] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall co­operate with the respondent­authority for expeditious hearing of the appeal. 8] Till appeal is decided, respondent­authority shall not disconnect the electric supply to the factory of the appellant provided appellant continues to pay the regular bills. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.