← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1482/2014dispossed offdismiss for default

Ramkrushna S/O Mahipat Sonare v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Through Its Executive Engineer, Nagpur And 1

2015-09-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp1482.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.1482 OF 2014 (Ramkrushna s/o Mahipat Sonare ..vs.. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., through Ex. Engineer and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.A. Vyawahare, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 09-09-2015 The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. By the impugned order, the learned District Magistrate has permitted the respondent No.1 to undertake the activity on fulfilling the procedural requirement as observed in the impugned order. The respondent No.1-Transmission Company has filed additional submissions dated 08-09-2015, stating that during the pendency of this petition, the foundation of tower, erection of tower and stringing of tower location No.4 have been completed. It is further submitted that the damages have been calculated as per the rules in the presence of the revenue authorities by following the prescribed procedure and the petitioner has been paid the compensation amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-, which the petitioner has accepted.

2.

Shri N.A. Vyawahare, learned Advocate for the

2 wp1482.14 petitioner submits that he is not having any instructions about further developments in the matter. Be that as it may, in view of the additional submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1-Transmission Company, nothing survives in the petition.

3.

The petition is disposed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE pma