2025:BHC-NAG:13841-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 129 OF 2018

(ANIL WADPALLIWAR....VS..MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTH.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Shri Santosh Runghta, Sr.Adv. a/b Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Advocate for

Respondent No.1.

Shri P.K.Sathianathan, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Shri Ratnakar Singh, Adv. a/w Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Adv. for R-3 & 5.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND

RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 08/12/2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09/12/2025

1. Heard.

2. In the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) a declaration is sought that the resolution dated 04/09/2018 passed by the respondent-Commission as per se illegal, arbitrary, draconian and highly unconstitutional. It is contended that the said resolution defeats the spirit of the transparency in the proceedings held before the State Commission and therefore,

does not stand to the scrutiny of law.

3. The petitioner then amended the petition and added a prayer to initiate appropriate criminal prosecution as prescribed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Record Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”) against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for violating Section 8 of the said Act by eliminating the record till 4^th September 2008, without

seeking permission of the Director of Department of Archives.

4. It is important to note that similar public interest litigation was filed before the Principal Seat at Mumbai vide PIL No.79 of 2025 seeking quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 04/09/2018. In the said PIL an injunction and stay was sought from taking further steps by the respondents in furtherance of the impugned resolution, which also includes elimination of record. In the said PIL a reference was also made to the Act of 2005.

5. This Court at Principal Seat, vide order dated 11/11/2015, dismissed the said PIL and thereby rejected the challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018. Since the said judgment dated 11/11/2025 is binding on this Court and squarely covers the challenge raised to the constitutionality of the resolution dated 04/09/2018, the fate of the challenge raised in the present petition to the resolution dated 04/09/2018, will follow the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the prayer clause raising challenge to the resolution dated

04/09/2018.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer for initiation of the appropriate criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Act of 2005 for eliminating the record is the prayer which survives.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the audio and video recordings of the meetings of the Commission was maintained by the Commission since inception. It was for clarity and transparency. It is submitted that on 04/09/2018 the impugned resolution was issued and on 05/09/2018 such audio and video record was eliminated without showing any tearing urgency to destroy the same. It is, therefore, argued that such elimination of the record without following due procedure is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2005 and hence, the members of the Commission shall be prosecuted.

8. On the other hand, Shri Runghta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Commission argues that once the challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018 is rejected, the prayer for prosecution of the members of the Commission cannot be granted as Clause (3) of the resolution dated 0