Sushiladevi W/O Sachhidanand Khatwani v. Mah. State Electricity Distribution Com. Through Its Executive Engineer, Gondia And Another

wp1168-1169.15 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2015 M/s. Radhika Rice Mill, Goregaon, thr. Tulsidar Bhagwandas Khatwani -vsMaharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Gondia, thr. its Executive Engineer & anr.. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2015 Sushiladevi W/o Sachhidanand Khatwani -vsMaharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Gondia, thr. its Executive Engineer & anr.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Tushar Mandalekar, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Quazi, counsel for the respondents.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & PRASANNA. B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 19.11.2015.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Gondia, asking the petitioner to raise the objection to the demand bill in respect of the electricity supply within a period of seven days, failing which the electricity supply would be discontinued if the amount sought to be recovered by the demand bill is not deposited.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not replied or objected to the demand bill in pursuance of the impugned order, dated 24/02/2014. Immediately, on the receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the same. If the petitioner has any objection in regard to the demand bill, the petitioner was free to raise the objection within a period of seven days, as expected by the impugned communication, dated

wp1168-1169.15 2/2 24/02/2015. The petition is premature. It cannot be said at this stage that the respondents would not consider the case or objection of the petitioner, if submitted.

Since the petition is premature, we decline to entertain the same. Since the petition was pending in this Court for some time, the petitioner may raise the objection to the demand bill within a period ten days, from today.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE