IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (SUO MOTU) NO. 1 OF 2009 . ... Appellant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Shivan Dessai, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Coram:- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 17th March, 2010 P.C. A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us ( U. D. Salvi,J) was a party directed the Registry to register a news item published in the daily Herald dated 13.09.2009 as a suo motu PIL W.P. 2. The article dealt with the non-availability, black-outs, interrupted electricity supply, street lights etc. As the same had an impact on public life and affected all sections of society, this Court directed the Registry to register the news item as a PIL W.P. 3. After notices were issued to the necessary parties a Division Bench by an order dated 11.1.2010 restricted the Petition to the following issues : (a) procurement of CFL bulbs for use in the street lights for the State; (b) a regular effective functioning of the consumer protection council; (c) intermittent complaint of black out in the industrial areas; (d) low voltage in residential areas; (e) telephone/television cables being strung on the electric poles. 4. We will deal with issue (a) last. 5. As far as issue (b) is concerned, the learned Advocate General states that the council is now in place and is functioning regularly. The statement is accepted. 6. In respect of issue (c), it does appear that there was load shedding at times in certain industrial areas. We do not deem it appropriate on the basis of the record available to us to carry the matter further as the concerned parties namely the industries have not approached this Court in this regard. It is not possible for us to pursue this item as we do not have enough information regarding the same. For instance, it is always possible for the industrial undertakings to have their own source for supply of the alleged inadequate supply of electricity. We clarify that if they do so this order would not come in their way in any manner. 7. Similarly, in respect of issue (d) we are unable to take the matter further. For instance, it has been shown that voltage fluctuation occurs due to inadequate arrangements in residential premises by the concerned tenaments holders. Several gadgets may be operated or added to a single phase where three phase wiring is necessary. Without adequate information it is not possible to pass any orders in this regard. 8. As regards issue (e), the learned Advocate General states that telephone cables are not being strung on the electricity poles. He further states that if any such cases are pointed out suitable action will be taken promptly. 9. The learned Advocate General states that television cables are being strung on the electricity poles in certain cases. He states that as regards the television cables the Government is formulating a policy to regulate the same. This is a matter which the Government has to decide. If a party considers the policy to be defective he is at liberty to challenge the same. 10. In respect of issue (a) namely procurement of CFL bulbs, it was contended by Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Amicus Curiea, that whereas 4500 bulbs were initially sought to be acquired, the tender was invited for 9000 bulbs. 11. There can be no objection to the same. The Respondents found that they were in a position to procure a larger number of CFL bulbs than HPSV bulbs with the available budget requirement in fact is greater than that. In the circumstances, the Respondents were entirely justified in ordering a larger number of bulbs. 12. The next contention is that the specification were changed from 85 watts to 80 to 85 watts. Whereas the tender originally was for 85 watts bulbs and it was reduced to 80-85 watts. This, it was alleged was only to favour the successful tenderer. We do not agree. The actual requirement was for 250 watts and the wattage output of CFL bulb of 80 watts is in fact 320 watts. Further none of the other tenderers have objected to the same. No prejudice in this regard has been shown. 13. It was submitted that the certification as required by the tender document was not furnished. The certification by the manufacturer though not permissible under the tender conditions was accepted. It would not be fair to consider this point as the article based on which the present Petition has been registered does not contain the said allegation. The allegation finds place in the intervenor's affidavit in support of the application for the intervention which was rejected. 14. Lastly, the record does not indicate the supply to have been either defective or having caused a loss to the State sufficient to pass any adverse orders in this Petition. 9811 bulbs were ordered out of which 845 bulbs were found to be defective. Out of a total sum of Rs.5,26,313/-, in respect of the defective bulbs Rs.4,97,700/- has been recovered from the earnest money/security deposit. 15. In the circumstances, no further action is called for. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. at*