Shrikar Trimbakrao Phad vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shrikar Trimbakrao Phad, is the owner of land where a petrol pump was sanctioned. A 33 kv electric line passed through his land. He applied to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) for shifting this overhead line. He opted for the 1.3% DDF scheme, appointing Respondent No. 7, Balvant Annasaheb Gangne, as the contractor. The petitioner paid MSEDCL Rs. 8,265/- and Respondent No. 7 Rs. 1,91,990/-, Rs. 2,00,000/-, and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the shifting work. The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 7, under the guidance of MSEDCL officers (Respondents No. 5 and 6), did not shift the line underground as per the sanction letter dated 28.12.2023, but instead shifted it overhead unauthorizedly. He further alleges fraud and corruption, and that an inquiry report found gross illegalities by Respondents No. 5 and 6. MSEDCL denied the petitioner's claims, stating he did not specifically request underground shifting and that the mention of 'UGC' in the sanction was a copy-paste error. Respondent No. 7 stated the work was done as per sanction and the petitioner was present without objection.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that the work was mandated to be underground. While the sanction letter contained the abbreviation 'UGC', the Court found substance in MSEDCL's contention that this was an inadvertent mistake due to copy-pasting, especially given that the estimate provided was for overhead shifting, which was significantly less costly than underground shifting. The Court noted that the petitioner himself appointed the contractor and was present during the work, yet raised no objection regarding the method of shifting until much later, specifically after facing difficulties with the petrol pump allotment due to the overhead line. The Court also observed that the petitioner's earlier complaints focused on the quality of the overhead shifting, not the method. Furthermore, the Court found that the petition raised disputed questions of fact regarding the agreed-upon method of shifting, which were not suitable for adjudication under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach MSEDCL afresh for underground shifting by following the prescribed procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sanction letter dated 28.12.2023 mandated the shifting of the overhead electric line to an underground cable, and if so, whether the respondents failed to comply with this mandate? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of the sanction letter and the nature of the work performed). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the sanction letter clearly indicated the shifting was to be done via the underground method. He argued that Respondents No. 5 and 6 failed to supervise the work properly, leading to the overhead line being shifted unauthorizedly. He also claimed that an inquiry report supported his allegations of gross illegalities by MSEDCL officers. He sought compensation for the loss incurred due to non-compliance. Respondents' arguments (MSEDCL and Respondent No. 7): MSEDCL argued that the petitioner did not specifically request underground shifting in his application and that the mention of 'UGC' (presumably for underground cable) in the sanction letter was an inadvertent error due to copy-pasting. They stated that the estimate was for overhead shifting and that the petitioner was aware of this. MSEDCL also pointed out that the petitioner only raised the grievance of underground shifting much later, after encountering issues with the petrol pump allotment, and that his initial complaints were about the quality of the overhead shifting work. Respondent No. 7 contended that the work was completed as per the sanction, approval, and estimate, and that the petitioner was present during the work and raised no objections.