Bombay High Court
THOMAS S/O.DAVID MASCERENHASversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous, but the petitioner may revive the proceeding if the respondent's claim of restoration is factually incorrect.
Summary
The petitioner, Thomas, filed a writ petition seeking restoration of electricity to his premises after it was disconnected on the allegation of electricity theft. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the electricity supply authority, contended that the petitioner had deposited the disputed amount, after which supply was restored, leaving no live issue. The petitioner's counsel was unable to confirm the restoration and could not be contacted. The court, after considering the submissions, held that the petition was infructuous and ordered its closure, while allowing the petitioner the right to revive the proceeding if the respondent's claim proved factually incorrect. The interim application filed alongside the petition was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial response when the alleged ground for disconnection of electricity has been remedied and no live issue remains?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed as infructuous while preserving the petitioner's right to revive the suit if facts change?
Subjects
- electricity theft
- disconnection
- restoration of supply
- writ petition
- infructuous
- civil procedure
Judgment
28 WP 748-26 WITH IA 773-26-OS.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.773 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2026
Thomas s/o David Mascerenhas …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
Mr. Amit G. Dubey i/by Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavisha Shah, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP, for the State.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATED: 5th OCTOBER, 2026.
PC:-
1. The core controversy in this Writ Petition is pertaining to
disconnection of electricity to the Petitioner’s premises on the
alleged ground of theft of electricity. The Petitioner is seeking
restoration of connection to his premises by filing the present
Petition.
Digitally
2. Today when the matter is called out, Ms. Kavisha Shah,
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
2026.10.06
10:24:07
+0530
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 submits that
pursuant to the deposit made by the Petitioner of the disputed
Page 1 of 2
28 WP 748-26 WITH IA 773-26-OS.DOC
amount, which has been transferred to the Respondent No.2,
electricity supply has since been restored to his premises.
Therefore, no live issue survives in this Writ Petition. Although
time was granted to Mr. Amit G. Dubey, learned Counsel for
Petitioner to seek confirmation of the same, he submits that no
contact could be established with the Petitioner. Mr. Dubey,
however, submits that since the learned counsel of the Respondent
No.2 had made a submission, on instructions, this matter can be
closed by reserving right of the Petitioner, to re-agitate the matter,
if and when such occasion arises.
3. Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, this Petition is closed, as infructuous. However, the
Petitioner would be at liberty to revive this proceeding, by
demonstrating that the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.2 was factually incorrect.
4. Interim Application also stands disposed of.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.