M/S. Polygomma Industries Pvt Ltd Thru. Director v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12702 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13194 OF 2025 M/s Polygomma Industries Pvt. Ltd.

... Petitioner/Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ------ Mr. Vishal M. Dhamal for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rahul Sinha a/w Mr. Soham Bhalerao and Mr. Harshit Tyagi i/b DSK Legal for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Virat Chavda a/w Ms. Minal Chavan and Ms. Mrunmai Kore i/b Renewsys India Pvt. Ltd. for Respondent No.4. ------ CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 10th DECEMBER 2025 P.C.

1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2) By this Petition, the Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to revoke/cancel the sanction letter/order dated 20th March, 2025, issued by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.4, by which the Respondent No.4 was permitted to tap 1/4

from the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder (Polygomma Express Feeder).

3) The premise on which the aforesaid relief is sought by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was not heard before the said sanction was granted by the Respondent No.2 permitting the Respondent No.4 to tap from the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder. 4) Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, states that Respondent No.4 has not tapped from the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder, but the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have released the electricity connection, in favour of the Respondent No.4, by tapping the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder.

5) Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, does not dispute the fact that no hearing was given to the Petitioner before the sanction was given, permitting the Respondent No.4 to tap from the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, fairly states that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 will hear the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4, within two 2/4

weeks from today, vis-a-vis the aforesaid sanction and after hearing the parties, will take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within one week thereafter. Statement accepted.

6) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pass an appropriate Order, in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4, since, the Respondent No.4 has been permitted to tap from the Petitioner's High-Tension Dedicated Feeder.

7) In view of the aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also fairly states that he will withdraw proceeding filed by the Petitioner before the Consumer Redressal Forum, since as of today, the grievance of the Petitioner stands redressed.

8) In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in this Petition. The Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 9) Needless to state that, we have not gone into merits of the matter and as such keep all contentions of all parties on merits, open. 3/4

10) In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing further survives for consideration in Interim Application No.13194 of 2025, and as such the same also stands disposed of.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 4/4 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.12.16 11:09:05 +0530 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN