Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1159 (BOM)

Eristo Zuzarte v. Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department, Vidyut Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Panjim Goa

2020-10-12

M.S.JAWALKAR, M.S.SONAK

body2020
JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, the learned Advocate General appears alongwith Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Dinesh Naik, the learned Counsel appears for Respondent No.5. 2. We grant Rule in this petition and with the consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner challenges the communication dated 01.01.2020 by which he has been informed that the electricity meter which was in his name from the year 1991 now stands transferred in the name of the respondent No.5. 4. Though, the communication refers to following of due process of law, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was afforded a hearing by the concerned authorities before the electricity meter was transferred from his name to the respondent No.5. According to us, such transfers without even afford of opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner cannot be regarded as adoption of the due process of law. 5. Mr. Naik, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 points out that the respondent No.5 is the lawful tenant and there is absolutely nothing wrong in the transfer of electricity meter in the name of respondent No.5. 6. At this stage, we are really not concerned about the position or legal status of the concerned parties. We are primarily concerned with the decision making process. The decision making process ought to have, in these circumstances, involved afford of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. On the aforesaid ground, we quash and set aside the impugned communication and direct the restoration of status quo. However, we direct the concerned respondent to consider the application of respondent No.5 for transfer of electricity meter in his name after giving opportunity of hearing to both, the respondent No.5 as well as the petitioner and, to thereafter, pass appropriate orders. The concerned respondent to complete this process within two months from today and communicate its decision to both, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5. 8. We dispose of the rule in this petition in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copy of this Order.