1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2010. Sau. Gitanjali Arvind Jaiswal. -: VERSUS :- Executive Engineer [Administrative/Nodal] Officer and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard Shri S. Khedkar, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondents. The Court finds conduct of petitioner as also respondents unbecoming in the matter. The petitioner has undertaken to shift existing 11 K.V. Over head line at his expenditure and that has not been done. The Consumer Forum has recognized this position and modified the directions issued by the Internal Cell of respondents to that extent. I do not find anything wrong with it. Contention that direction of Cell was not challenged by respondent in appeal or revision or before 2 any other appropriate forum, is misconceived as petitioner himself has given that undertaking. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondents has contended that the Cell is internal mechanism evolved by the respondents for convenience of customers and it has no jurisdiction to pass such orders. He further states that directions issued by the Cell need not be honoured by respondents. I find it difficult to accept this contention. However, no final verdict in this respect is recoded in the matter. Writ Petition is thus rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.