Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Amarjitsing Kashmirsing Chahel on 12 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
22-J-WP-5831-15 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5831 OF 2015
1. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. Through
its Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.L.
Rural Division, Vidhyut Bhavan
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity ig
Distribution Company Ltd.,
Sub-Division, Tiosa, Tq. Tiosa,
Dist. Amravati. ... Petitioners.
-vs-
Amarjitsing Kashmirsing Chahel,
Aged : 55 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Gurudeo Nagar, Gurukunj,
Mozari, Tq. Tiosa, Dist. Amravati. ... Respondent.
Shri S. S. Alaspurkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : July 12, 2016
Oral Judgment :
Rule heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners who are the appellants in an appeal filed before
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur are aggrieved
by an order dated 20/03/2015 dismissing the said appeal in default.
22-J-WP-5831-15 2/3
2. Shri S. S. Alaspurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the dates on which the appeal was adjourned were not noted
by the learned counsel representing the appellants which resulted in
dismissal of the appeal in default. He submitted that one opportunity
deserves to be granted for contesting the proceedings on merits.
3. Smt. S. W. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent
opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted
that in the impugned order reference has been made to the opportunities
granted to the petitioners for complying with the earlier directions. She
therefore submitted that the proceedings were rightly dismissed.
4. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the counsel for the
appellants remained absence on two occasions and costs of Rs.500/- were
not paid. Hence the request for restoration of the appeal as opposed by the
respondent is justified. However, considering the fact that an adjudication
on merits is necessary, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the
petitioners to contest the appeal on merits subject to imposition of costs. In
view of aforesaid the following order is passed :
The order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in First Appeal
No.A/07/944 is set aside. The said appeal is restored to file
22-J-WP-5831-15 3/3
subject to the petitioners paying total costs of Rs.3000/- to the
respondent before the State Commission within period of four
weeks from today. The said amount of costs would include the
costs of Rs.500/- that were directed to be paid by the petitioners
in the said appeal. If such costs are deposited, the appeal shall be
taken up for adjudication on merits. The counsel for the parties
shall appear before the State Commission on 22/08/2016 to
facilitate its adjudication.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
