[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri Anil Wadpalliwar vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:13841-DB
1 4-PIL129-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 129 OF 2018
(ANIL WADPALLIWAR....VS..MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Santosh Runghta, Sr.Adv. a/b Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Shri P.K.Sathianathan, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Shri Ratnakar Singh, Adv. a/w Shri Kailash Rawandhe, Adv. for R-3 & 5.
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 08/12/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09/12/2025
1. Heard.
2. In the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) a
declaration is sought that the resolution dated 04/09/2018
passed by the respondent-Commission as per se illegal, arbitrary,
draconian and highly unconstitutional. It is contended that the
said resolution defeats the spirit of the transparency in the
proceedings held before the State Commission and therefore,
does not stand to the scrutiny of law.
3. The petitioner then amended the petition and added
a prayer to initiate appropriate criminal prosecution as
prescribed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Record
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005") against
the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for violating Section 8 of the said Act
by eliminating the record till 4th September 2008, without
seeking permission of the Director of Department of Archives.
2 4-PIL129-2018
4. It is important to note that similar public interest
litigation was filed before the Principal Seat at Mumbai vide PIL
No.79 of 2025 seeking quashing and setting aside the resolution
dated 04/09/2018. In the said PIL an injunction and stay was
sought from taking further steps by the respondents in
furtherance of the impugned resolution, which also includes
elimination of record. In the said PIL a reference was also made
to the Act of 2005.
5. This Court at Principal Seat, vide order dated
11/11/2015, dismissed the said PIL and thereby rejected the
challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018. Since the said
judgment dated 11/11/2025 is binding on this Court and
squarely covers the challenge raised to the constitutionality of
the resolution dated 04/09/2018, the fate of the challenge
raised in the present petition to the resolution dated
04/09/2018, will follow the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the
prayer clause raising challenge to the resolution dated
04/09/2018.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the prayer for initiation of the appropriate criminal prosecution
under the provisions of the Act of 2005 for eliminating the
record is the prayer which survives.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the
audio and video recordings of the meetings of the Commission
was maintained by the Commission since inception. It was for
clarity and transparency. It is submitted that on 04/09/2018
the impugned resolution was issued and on 05/09/2018 such
3 4-PIL129-2018
audio and video record was eliminated without showing any
tearing urgency to destroy the same. It is, therefore, argued that
such elimination of the record without following due procedure
is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2005 and hence, the
members of the Commission shall be prosecuted.
8. On the other hand, Shri Runghta, learned Senior
Advocate for the respondent-Commission argues that once the
challenge to the resolution dated 04/09/2018 is rejected, the
prayer for prosecution of the members of the Commission
cannot be granted as Clause (3) of the resolution dated
04/09/2018 permits to eliminate the recording done till
04/09/2018 in due course of time as it is not part of the official
record. It is argued that since such recording was not part of the
official record, provisions of the Act of 2005 will not apply. It is,
therefore, prayed that no prayer, as sought to prosecute the
members of the Commission may be granted.
9. In light of the rival submissions on the issue to
prosecute the members of the Commission, we perused the
record and the relevant provisions.
10. The Resolution dated 04/09/2018, particularly
Clause (3), stipulates that "The recordings done till date be
eliminated in due course of time as it is not part of official
record." This clause expressly declares that such recordings do
not constitute part of the official record and further permits their
elimination. Consequently, once the challenge to the Resolution
dated 04/09/2018 is rejected, Clause (3) must also be deemed
to have been upheld by this Court. Therefore, the contention
4 4-PIL129-2018
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said
recordings formed part of the official record cannot be accepted.
Moreover, Regulation Nos.78 and 79(c) of the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business)
Regulations, 2004 support the argument of the learned counsel
for the respondent-Commission that it is not a public record,
which is prerequisite to attract Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of
2005.
11. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
prayer as made by the petitioner to prosecute the members of
the Commission cannot be granted. Accordingly, we pass the
following order :
i) The Public Interest Litigation No.129 of 2018 is
dismissed.
ii) The pending Civil Applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
iii) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J)
RRaut..
Signed by: Raut (RR)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 11:25:37
