National Solar Energy Federation Of India v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission And Another
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1562 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12697 OF 2018 Ratnagiri Wind Power Projects Pvt Ltd
...Petitioner
Versus
Government of Maharashtra through Secretary, Energy Department & Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 390 OF 2019 MSPL Ltd
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya & Ors
...Respondents
AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1972 OF 2019 National Solar Energy Federation of India
...Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr
...Respondents
AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2019
Clean Wind Power (Satara) Pvt Ltd
...Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors
...Respondents
AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2245 OF 2019 CLP Wind Farms (India) Pvt Ltd & Ors
...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors
...Respondents
Mr Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate,i/b Dipali Sheth and Priya Pandey of Eternity Legal,for the Pe/titioners in WP/390/19. Mr Bimal Rajsekhar, for the Petitioner in WP/12697/2018. Mr Arijit Maitra, i/b Madhusudan G Gawde, for the Petitioner in WP/1972/2019.
Ms Vaidehi Naik, with Bitika Kaur, i/b Neeti Niyaman, for the Petitioner in WP/2116/2019 & WPL/2245/2019.
Mr Ashutosh A Kumbhakoni, Advocate General, with Ratnakar Singh, for Respondent-MERC in all the matters. Mr Abhijeet Joshi, for Respondent-MSLDC in all the matters & for Respondent No. 5 in WP/390/2019 and for Respondent No. 3 in WP/12697/2018.
Ms Nidhi Chheda, for Respondent No. 3 (MSEDCL) in WP/2116/ 2019 & WPL/ 2245/2019 and for Respondent No. 6 in WP/390/2019.
Dr Mrs Kirti R Kulkarni, AGP, for the Respondent N os. 1 to 3-State in WP/390/2019 and for Respondent No. 1 in WP/12697/2018. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ DATED:
PC:- 1.
After these Petitions were argued for some time and at this stage we were not inclined to interfere in our writ jurisdiction, each of the counsel appearing for the Petitioners in these Petitions, on the instructions from the Petitioners, seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Regulatory Commission. 2.
The Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
3.
Needless to clarify that should the law enact provisions enabling the commission to revisit the regulations or modify them or defer their implementation, then, such reliefs can always be claimed when the party approaches the Commission.
4.
In view of this, Civil Application No. 1562 of 2019 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J) (G. S. PATEL, J)