Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.Sachin Pawar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Vishal Tambat-Advocate for the respondents.

These appeals can be disposed of at the admission stage finally.  Following facts are not in dispute.

Appellant is a developer and promoter. Original opponent no.3 is MSEB and original opponent no.2 is a society of flat purchasers and/or house purchasers.  Original complainants are members of the said society.

Appellant has developed a property plot no.306/1 which was belonging to one Mr.Vinayak Waman Salve and six others.  In the said property, respondents/original complainants have purchased the row houses.   Building permission in respect of the said property was granted in favour of the appellant subject to removal of the electric line going through the said line. Since the said electric line was not removed and other deficiencies which were pointed out were not  complied, complaint was filed. It is ultimately revealed that the said electric line was not shifted and without shifting line construction has been carried out and the possession has been given to the purchasers of the row houses.  In fact, unless line is removed Completion Certificate cannot be granted.  What is important is that unless line is removed, appellant/original opponent should not have carried out the construction. However, he only submitted proposal for shifting of electric line with the MSEDC.  Further steps and orders were not obtained.  Under these circumstances order has been passed.  Above facts are undisputed on record.  Till the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum electric line was not shifted.  Under these circumstances, we find that the orders impugned in these appeals passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum requires no interference.  Appeal nos. A/06/237 to A/06/249 stands dismissed.

Pronounced dated 02^nd May, 2011.

Ms.