O R A L J U D G M E N T :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 28.01.2025 passed below Exh. 4 by the learned incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2025, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for restoration of electricity supply of petitioner, who is running a Micro Scale Industry at Chikhli, Buldhana.

4. The petitioner, on finding that there is a loose wire connection, a voltage fluctuation and some defect in the meter, petitioner made a complaint to the concerned authority and thereupon, the spot inspection was carried out. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued and FIR, alleging that a theft committed by petitioner, was registered on08.01.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The investigation is going on.However, the petitioner denied the allegation of theft.

5. Since the electricity supply of the petitioner’s unit is disconnected, the petitioner applied for restoration of it. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana vide order dated

28.01.2025 rejected the prayer. Hence, this petition.

6. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr Akshay Naik for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr D. M. Kale for the respondent.

7. The learned Senior Advocate argues that since the issue about commission of theft by petitioner is pending and as the petitioner denied the said allegation, till the respondent company establishes the offence of theft, the electric supply be restored. He further submits that the petitioner, in the meantime, is ready to deposit 60% of the total demand without prejudice to its rights. He further submits that if he fails in the present matter the balance amount will be deposited within a stipulated period as per the direction of the trial Court.

8. He further submits that in a similar situation this Court in the case of Saira Ahmed Khan, through her son Afzal Ahmed Khan .v/s. Additional Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and another, directed the authorities to restore the electric supply. He, therefore, submits that the same approach my be adopted in the present case too.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the present writ petition and submits that the petitioner may be directed to deposit the complete amount. He further submits that at the most the respondent can allow the petitioner to deposit the amount in installments.

10. I have perused the record and the impugned orders.

11. From the record prima facie it appears that the petitioner made a written complaint on 16.05.2024 to the respondent informing about the fluctuation in the voltage and further misfunctioning of the electric meter. The petitioner, further pointed out that there is a loose connection. Thereafter, it appears that a spot inspection was carried out and a report was submitted, which was the basis to register the offence. It is evident that though as per the respondent’s case it is a case of theft, as per petitioner there was a loose connection and it was informed to the respondent. 12. Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a small scale industry and the livelihood of employees working in it is dependent upon working of industry, further suspension of work for any reason may adversely affect the good will and reputation of the industry. In the circumstances, if the electricity supply is not restored, not only the petitioner but the employees and their families would also suffer and it is even before proving the guilt.

13. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the approach as adopted by the Principal Seat in the similar case of Saira Ahmed Khan (supra), be adopted. In the case of Saira Ahmed Khan (supra) this Court has observed thus :

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner