1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2171/2011 [Purushottam H. Agrawal .vrs. State of Maharashtra and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 05, 2011. Heard Mrs. R.D. Raskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent no.1/State and Shri R.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5. Contention that the petitioner had applied for 10 HP Industrial Power connection prior to 14.12.2010 and also on 14.12.2010 additionally appears to be in dispute. The petitioner is relying upon the copy of application in prescribed proforma, while Advocate Shri Moharir is disputing it. That application is without any date and also does not give address in detail of the unit for which on the place at which the 2 supply is sought. It also is blank at the place where applicant himself has to give his name and address. However, at the place where the space is left for signature and seal of office, some seal and signature appear and according to the petitioner, it is of the office of respondents at Mouda. Advocate Shri Moharir has pointed out that while seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has not disclosed any such application and information sought was only in relation to application dated 14.12.2010. During hearing, our attention has also been invited to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to go into the controversy. As per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, respondent nos.2 to 5 are under obligation to supply electricity within the period stipulated therein. Hence, even if, the petitioner makes such application again, respondent nos.2 to 5 cannot avoid that obligation. Therefore, we permit the petitioner to make fresh application within a period of one week from 3 today. If such application is moved by the petitioner, respondent nos.2 to 5 shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, ignoring present litigation impartially and fairly. The petition is disposed of with this direction. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande