Kallinath Shivyogi Dhange v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:15224-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

13 WRIT PETITION NO. 12392 OF 2024 Kallinath Shivyogi Dhange

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others .....

Shri. Abasaheb D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri. S. K. Tambe, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent / State. Shri. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ......

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

Dated : JUNE 16, 2025 PER COURT :- .

The Petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, M.S.E.D.C.L., Aurangabad in respect of the relief, which was refused by the order dated 13.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Representation No.22 of 2024 before the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur. The Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur by order dated 18.07.2024 allowed the Petitioner's Representation. Since the directions of the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur were not complied, the Petitioner had filed the Application for execution on 07.09.2024. Since no decision was taken on his said Execution Application, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : "A) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no.2 - The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission to decide and pass order on an application submitted by the petitioner dt.7.9.2024 under Regulation 20.11 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation 2020 as expeditiously as possible.

C) Any other relief or order to which the petitioner is found entitled to in law and in the ends of justice may kindly be granted."

2.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that in the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.2, it is stated that the Application for execution made by the Petitioner was not as per requirement. He points to paragraph no.8 of the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.2 and submits that the Petitioner will make the Application / Representation / Execution Application as per the requirement of Respondent No.2 and if such Application / Representation / Execution Application is made, necessary direction may be issued.

3.

The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits that if the Petitioner makes the proper Application / Representation / Execution Application, the same will be dealt with and considered in accordance with law.

4.

In view of the above, we dispose off the Petition with a direction that if the Petitioner approaches the Competent Forum with appropriate Application / Representation / Execution Application, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned Competent Forum within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such Application / Representation / Execution Application.

( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R. G. AVACHAT, J. ) GGP Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/06/2025 18:04:36