Rajendra S/O Brijmohan Sharma vs The Electricity Inspector, Maha. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9365 Bom

                                                                                               922-WP5691.22.odt
                                                            1/2



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        WRIT PETN. NO. 5691 OF 2022
                             Rajendra Brijmohan Sharma
                                         -Vs.-
             The Electricity Inspector, MSEDCL, Khamgaon and another
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                     Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Mr.T.U.Tathod, counsel for the petitioner.



                                                 CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 16.09.2022

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. It is contended that in the present case, the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'Act of 2003') could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay, without considering the question as to whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is emphasized that in the impugned order, the appeal is refused to be entertained on the basis that the delay in filing the appeal could not have been condoned under section 127 of the Act of 2003. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakhee Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 268, to emphasize that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply and hence, Appellate Authority in the present case ought to have

KHUNTE 922-WP5691.22.odt

considered as to whether there was cogent explanation on the part of the petitioner for explaining delay in approaching the said Authority.

3. It is further pointed out that under section 127(2) of the Act of 2003, the appeal has to be entertained, if 50% of the amount claimed by the Authority is deposited. In the present case, while the demand is of Rs.3,92,120/-, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,62,570/-, which is more than 50% of the demanded amount.

4. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 14/10/2022.

5. In the meanwhile and till the next date of listing, there shall be ad interim stay in terms of prayer clause

(iv).

JUDGE

Signed By:GHANSHYAM S KHUNTE

Signing Date:16.09.2022 17:38

KHUNTE