ASSISTANT ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER vs RAJU DATTATRAY SHINDE — WP/4083/2018

Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Jul-2019

CNR: HCBM030520002017

Filing Number

WP/41972/2017

Filing Date

22-Dec-2017

Registration No

WP/4083/2018

Registration Date

21-Apr-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India
Electricity Act 1910

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASSISTANT ENGINEER MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER

    Adv. MUNDHE SANJAY V

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJU DATTATRAY SHINDE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao ThombreView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the electricity distribution company's challenge to a Permanent Lok Adalat's compensation award to a farmer. The court held that the Lok Adalat had jurisdiction since electricity supply falls under "public utility services" under Section 22A(b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, making the farmer's complaint maintainable despite him not being a direct consumer. The court upheld the compensation of Rs. 85,000 with 9% interest, finding it reasonable based on documented losses from a fire incident affecting his irrigation pipeline and sugarcane crop. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre

  4. 11-Jun-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  5. 28-Aug-2023

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant

  6. 19-Mar-2020

    Urgent Orders (Civil)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge

  7. 05-Mar-2020

    Urgent Orders (Civil)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge

  8. 26-Feb-2020

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. GhugeView PDF

  9. 26-Feb-2020

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge

  10. 05-Feb-2020

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit B. Deo

  11. 22-Jan-2020

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit B. Deo

  12. 06-Jan-2020

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit B. DeoView PDF

  13. 06-Jan-2020

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit B. Deo

  14. 12-Dec-2019

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav

  15. 05-Dec-2019

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav

  16. 15-Nov-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. JadhavView PDF

  17. 15-Nov-2019

    Urgent Circulation - CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav

  18. 11-Sep-2019

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat

  19. 20-Aug-2019

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik

  20. 13-Aug-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. KarnikView PDF

  21. 13-Aug-2019

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik

  22. 05-Aug-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. KarnikView PDF

  23. 05-Aug-2019

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik

  24. 01-Jul-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice P.R. BoraView PDF

  25. 01-Jul-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 22-Dec-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/4083/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the electricity distribution company's challenge to a Permanent Lok Adalat's compensation award to a farmer. The court held that the Lok Adalat had jurisdiction since electricity supply falls under "public utility services" under Section 22A(b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, making the farmer's complaint maintainable despite him not being a direct consumer. The court upheld the compensation of Rs. 85,000 with 9% interest, finding it reasonable based on documented losses from a fire incident affecting his irrigation pipeline and sugarcane crop. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case