1

01.02 wp586 of 2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.586 OF 2021

Santabai Kisanrao Arewar

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra and others

… Respondents

Mr. V.N. Patre, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Amit Madiwale, AGP for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ

DATE : 1 FEBRUARY 2021

P.C.:

The Petitioner has sought a direction to the Respondent-

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company to restore the

electricity connection which has been disconnected by the order

dated 20 November 2019. The impugned order states the

Petitioner had sought for new electricity connection, which was

refused on the ground that a Suit is pending before the Civil

Court.

2.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the

Petitioner’s brother, who has filed a Suit in respect of the property

in question, has objected to grant of electricity connection to the

Petitioner and which is one of the reasons why the application has

not been considered. The learned Counsel submits that under

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 even an occupier is

2

01.02 wp586 of 2021.odt

permitted to apply for new electricity connection and even though

the name of the brother of the Petitioner appears in the property

extract on the basis of Petitioner being an occupier, electricity

connection ought to have been granted.

3.

This is not a case of mere occupier, but there is a dispute

regarding occupation of the Petitioner, which is pending in the

Civil Court. The Petitioner’s brother has filed a Civil Suit for

eviction of the Petitioner/partition of the property and has

objected to the new connection. Once there is a serious dispute

concerning title and occupation/possession in the Civil Court,

according to us, it cannot be overridden by issuing a writ of

mandamus to the Respondents who have, out of abundant caution,

chosen to wait in view of the Suit. Further, any observation by us

will reflect on the merits of the Suit pending in the Civil Court.

4.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in

this Civil Suit, order cannot be issued to the Electricity

Distribution Company. However, the Petitioner can always move

an application for the Petitioner to apply with a finding as to the

physical occupation of the Petitioner. If such a finding/direction

is given by the Civil Court where Suit is pending, we do not find

any impediment in the way of the Petitioner in view of Section 43

of the Act of 2003.

5.

In case any application is made by the Petitioner and if it is

found that the Petitioner is without electricity, the same

3

01.02 wp586 of 2021.odt

shall be decided by the Civil Court within a period of six weeks

from the said application.

6.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

(NITIN JAMDAR, J)

Lanjewar

Prashant

Lanjewar

Digitally signed

by Prashant

Lanjewar

Date:

2021.02.04

15:09:39

+0530