THOMAS S/O.DAVID MASCERENHAS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP/748/2026 · 2026-10-05
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14503 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14503 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
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.
2. Today when the matter is called out, Ms. Kavisha Shah,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 submits that pursuant to the deposit made by the Petitioner of the disputed PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.10.06 10:24:07 +0530
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.) {