Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Amol Prabhakar Joshi
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
FRESH
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble S. Ravindra Bhat, Hon'ble J.B. Pardiwala
Stage:
FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Dismissed
Listed On:
26 Sept 2022
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7809/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-03-2022 in WP No.8400/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Nagpur)
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AMOL PRABHAKAR JOSHI & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.63029/2022 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; and, IA No.63030/2022 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 26-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepa Chawan, Adv. Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Pargal, Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission against the Order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.8400 of 2019. The basic issue that arose for consideration before the High Court was whether a Member of the Maharashtra Electricity Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2022.09.27 18:02:08 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
Regulation Commission satisfies the requirement of Regulation 13 of
the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 prescribing qualification of the Electricity Ombudsman.
The High Court while accepting the writ petition which sought a writ of quo warranto, has concluded that the appointment of respondent no.2 to the post of Electricity Ombudsman was incorrect and invalid.
We have heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned Senior Advocate as well as Ms. Deepa Chawan, learned Advocate in support of the petition.
We do not see any reason to interfere and take different view in the matter.
It is however clarified that any acts or orders passed by respondent no.2 while he was holding the position of Electricity Ombudsman, by de facto doctrine shall stand saved and no order shall be considered to be illegal only on the ground that respondent no.2 did not have the requisite qualifications to hold the position as Electricity Ombudsman.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER