High Court of Bombay Issues Rule and Hears Matter Finally in Writ Petition Challenging MSEDCL Communication. The Court Decides the Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution with Consent of Parties After Respondents Waive Service.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, a private limited company and its shareholder, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, invoking its civil appellate jurisdiction. The petition assailed a communication dated 6 December 2024 issued by respondent no. 2, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL). The respondents included the State of Maharashtra through its Industries, Energy and Labour Department, MSEDCL, its Chief Engineer (Kalyan Zone), the Superintendent Engineer (Palghar Small Circle), and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioners were represented by advocates Mr. Jay Sanklecha and Mr. Kunal Damle, while Senior Advocate Ms. Deepa Chawan appeared for respondent nos. 2 to 4 along with Mr. Kiran Gandhi and Ms. Ruchi Patil, instructed by Little and Company. Mr. M.M. Pabale, Additional Government Pleader, appeared for the State. The bench comprised Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna. The judgment was reserved on 16 April 2025 and pronounced on 6 June 2025. The Court, at the outset, issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith. The respondents waived service, and with the consent of all parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. The text of the judgment up to the point of extraction only records the preliminary order and the nature of the challenge. No substantive legal issues, arguments, or findings were detailed in the provided excerpt. The petition's core grievance concerned the impugned communication of MSEDCL, but its content and the specific relief sought were not disclosed in the available portion of the document. Consequently, the extract does not reveal the outcome on merits, the ratio decidendi, or any analysis of statutory provisions. The only recorded step is the procedural order allowing the matter to be heard immediately with the parties’ consent.

Issue of Consideration

WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2025

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 92

Writ Petition No. 2734 of 2025

2025-06-06

G. S. Kulkarni, Advait M. Sethna

2025:BHC-AS:22552-DB

Mr. Jay Sanklecha a/s. Mr. Kunal Damle for the petitioners; Ms. Deepa Chawan, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kiran Gandhi, Ms. Ruchi Patil i/b. Little and Company for respondent nos. 2 to 4; Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for the State

Aeon Creations Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Jain

The State of Maharashtra (Industries, Energy & Labour Department), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a communication issued by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Remedy Sought

Challenge to communication dated 6 December 2024 issued by MSEDCL

Filing Reason

Assailing the impugned communication dated 6 December 2024

Judgment Excerpts

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the communication dated 6 December, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (for short “MSEDCL”) whereby…

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed; the Court reserved the matter on 16 April 2025 and pronounced the judgment on 6 June 2025. The Court issued Rule, made it returnable forthwith, accepted respondents' waiver of service, and with parties' consent heard the matter finally.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petitions in Land Acquisition Case Due to Compliance with Directions and Availability of Statutory Remedies. The Court Found No Wilful Violation of Orders as Fresh Notifications and Awards Were Issued Under the Right ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction in NDPS Case for Possession of Commercial Quantity of Charas — Rejects Argument That Quantity Must Be Weighed After Excluding Packing Material. The court held that the weight of the contraband substance for dete...