1 WP 1349 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1349 OF 2010 Ispat Industries Ltd. ..... Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.E.I.Bharucha, Senior Advocate i/by T.N.Tripathi & Co., for the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.Varun Agarwal, Mr.Subir Kumar, Mr.R.G.Sonawane i/by Lex Global Legal Consultants, for respondent No.1. Mr.I.H.Calcuttawalla, for respondent No.3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for necessary writ directions under Article 226 of Constitution of India to the respondents and the impugned letter dated 30-08-2010 (Exh.I) issued by respondent No.1, be set aside by which the application of the petitioner for open access is rejected. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 states that there is an adequate remedy available under the Regulation 22.4 which reads as under : - “22.4 Nothing in these Regulations shall, expressly or impliedly, bar the Commission from dealing with any matter of exercising any power under the Act for which no Regulations have been made, and the Commission may deal 2 WP 1349 of 2010 with such matters, powers and functions in a manner it deems fit. 2. According to him, the Commission can very well dealt with this aspect. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection if the Commission decides the matter on merits, without going into the question that the commission has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that earlier such matters have been decided by the Commission. We therefore, direct the petitioner to file appropriate application/representation before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission i.e. respondent No.2. Such application/representation may be filed within a period of two weeks from today and on receipt of the same, the respondent No.2 may decide the same on its own merits within a period of two months after hearing both the sides. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive this petition, if any jurisdictional issue arises as to whether the Commission can decide such matters. 3. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )