1 Criminal Writ Petition No.307 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.307 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its Deputy Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L.Urban Sub-Divison-2, Visava Garden, Nanded, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Mubarak Ali S/o.Pryar Ali Lalani, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Himalaya Ice Factory, C/o.21-C, Industrial Area, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded 2. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, (Deleted as per order dt.11/7/2011) RESPONDENT Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Syed, learned counsel for respondent. Respondent no.2 is deleted vide court’s order dated 11/07/2011. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 13/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.307 of 2011 parties, heard finally at this stage. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. 482 of The Cr.P.C., is directed against the order passed below Exh.24 in Spl.Case No.86/2006, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-1 Nanded dated 18/02/2011. By the same order, directions were given to the petitioner to restore the electricity supply of the accused in the said special case. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.S.E.B. Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., while passing the order impugned, the learned Lower Court has observed that no documents were produced by the petitioner to show that huge amount is due before the electricity meter used by the consumer. According to him, the documents which are annexed with the petition, will show that the huge amount was due for the period 2005-11, subject to the period of the limitation. When specifically questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to state that the documents which are annexed with the writ petition were not produced before the Lower Court. In the light of this, it is requested on behalf of the petitioner that the matter may be remanded back to the Trial Court with directions to give an opportunity to both the sides to lead their evidence and then the application of the respondent to be decided in accordance with Law. In view of this statement, the order passed below Exh.24 in M.S.E.B. 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.307 of 2011 Special Case No.86/2006 is quashed and set aside but the protection to the petitioner that till the decision of the application, not to dis- connect the electric supply provided to the respondent, which was restored because of the order passed below Exh.24. Lower Court to decide the application moved by the respondent as early as possible, but preferably before 31/12/2011. 4. Rule thus made absolute accordingly. It is clarified that petitioner is directed not to dis-connect the electricity supply restored to the respondent till the decision of that application. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.w.p.307-11