Bombay High Court
Ramsukh Resorts vs The Superintending Engineer, ... on 20 January, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
8.wpst.99269.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 99269 OF 2020
M/s. Ramsukh Resorts ... Petitioners
Versus
The Superintending Engineer,
M.S.E.D.C.L. O & M Circle, Satara & Ors. ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Petitioners.
.........
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2021.
P.C. :-
1 Heard learned Counsel Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the
Petitioners.
2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the
Respondents are duly served by private notice. He undertakes to file
affidavit of service within two weeks from today. Same is accepted.
Inspite of service, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondents when
the matter is called out.
3 By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.10.2020 passed
by the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai, Respondent No.4 in
Waghmare 1 / 5
8.wpst.99269.2020.doc
representation No.60 of 2020 and the supplementary bill dated
17.05.2019 served upon the Petitioners by covering letter dated
17.05.2019.
4 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier the
Respondent No.1 used to charge electricity duty at the industrial rate.
He submits that as per the concession given to the Petitioners, they were
entitled to the industrial rate till 31.10.2010. He submits that as and
when bills were issued by the Respondent No.1, the Petitioners paid the
entire amount. He submits that suddenly the Respondent No.1 issued
the demand notice for sum of Rs.31,93,689/- on the ground that after
31.10.2010, the Petitioners were supposed to pay the electricity charges
at commercial rate and not industrial rate. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioners submits that the electricity bill issued by the Respondent for
the month of June 2011 at Exh.C page 47 shows commercial use only.
He further submits that even the bill for the month of October 2020 at
page 49, has also shown the category as commercial. In view of this fact,
the Petitioners preferred the grievance application before the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum on 01.11.2019 on the ground that in view of
Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the demand raised by the
Respondents is barred by limitation. Section 56 (2) reads thus :-
Waghmare 2 / 5
8.wpst.99269.2020.doc
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no sum due from any
consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after
the period of two years from the date when such sum
became first due unless such sum has been shown
continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for
electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the
supply of the electricity."
5 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that even our
High Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited vs. Electricity Ombudsman and Others reported in
(2019) 3 Bombay Case Report page 1 held that, if demand for bill is of
more than two years, then the same cannot be recovered as barred by
limitation. He submits that inspite of all these facts Respondent No.3
dismissed the application. Hence, the Petitioners have preferred the
present Writ Petition.
6 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that during the
pendency of the present Writ Petition, Petitioners received the notice
from the Respondents that if they failed to pay the said arrears, they will
take coercive action against the Petitioners.
7 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that he has
received instructions from his client that they are ready and willing to
deposit Rs.31,93,689/- with the Respondents under protest during the
Waghmare 3 / 5
8.wpst.99269.2020.doc
pendency of the present Writ Petition and the Respondents may be
directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners.
8 Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioners and the provision of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act,
2003 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Electricity
Ombudsman and Others, reported in (2019) 3 Bombay Case page 1 and
as the Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the said amount with
the Respondents subject to outcome of the present Writ Petition, the
Petitioners have made out a case for ad-interim relief Hence, the
following order is passed :
i) Admit.
ii) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads
thus :
"(b) During the pendency and till the hearing and
final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court
may stay the implementation, execution and
operation of the Judgment and Order dated October
22, 2020 by the Electricity Ombudsman (Mumbai)
(Respondent No.4) in representation No.60 of 2020
and the Supplementary Bill dated 17.05.2019 served
upon the Petitioner by covering letter
No.SE/STRC/A/HT/SUPP Bill/4147;"
Waghmare 4 / 5
8.wpst.99269.2020.doc
iii) The matter to appear on board on 22.02.2021 for
consideration of confirmation of ad-interim relief.
iv) The ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (b) is
on the condition that the Petitioners deposit the sum of
Rs.31,93,689/- with Respondent No.1 within two weeks from
today.
v) It is made clear that if the amount is not deposited in time,
the Respondents can take action against the Petitioners.
vi) It is made clear that the amount deposited by the Petitioners
is subject to the outcome of the present Writ Petition.
vii) In addition, to the usual mode of the service, the
Petitioners are permitted to serve the Respondents by the private
notice along with entire proceeding and the copy of this order
either by R.P.A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file affidavit of
service on or before the next date.
viii) Stand over to 22.02.2021 for confirmation of ad-interim
relief.
Digitally
signed by
Waishali S.
Waishali Waghmare
S.
Waghmare Date:
2021.01.25
05:43:46
+0530
( R.I. CHAGLA, J. ) ( K.K. TATED, J. )
Waghmare 5 / 5
