Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S Gupta Rice Industries, Gondia on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 45.wp.872.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 2018
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., O & M Division, through its
Executive Engineer, Gondia
Vs.
M/s Gupta Rice Industries at Tumkheda Tahsil Goregaon, District Gondia, through its
Propritor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. M. Quazi, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 10/08/2022
1. Heard Mr. Quazi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The petition challenges the order dated
31.7.2017 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum (CGRF) whereby the bill as raised upon the
respondent consumer for the period from November
2013 to December 2016 by the letter dated 25.1.2017 is
quashed and so also the disconnection notice dated
3.5.2017 and the order of the IGRC dated 18.7.2017 is
quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the
respondent consumer may be categorized in MF-2 from
25.1.2017, the date of first notice to the applicant.
(2) 45.wp.872.2018
3. Mr. Quazi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the categorization of the respondent from
MF-1 to MF-2 has already been effected from November
2013, however because of a computer error, the
categorization continued to be shown as MF-1 in the bill
raised upon the respondent consumer. When this
mistake came to be noticed in November 2016, the bill to
that effect was raised demanding the arrears from 2013
to 2016 by way of communication dated 25.1.2017, and
so also notice for disconnection was issued on 3.5.2017.
This was challenged before the IGRC, which by an order
dated 18.7.2017 rejected the challenge and granted
installments for payment of the dues as claimed. Further
challenge before the CGRF resulted in passing of the
impugned order dated 31.7.2017 (page 47) wherein the
above order has been passed.
4. It is contend by Mr. Quazi, learned counsel
for the petitioner that considering the language of
Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, it was permissible,
for the petitioner to have made a claim for recovery of
the dues in MF-2 category for a period of two years
preceding the date of demand i.e. from 26.1.2015 and
the order of the CGRF, which takes a view contrary
thereto cannot be sustained. He submits that in so far as
the arrears in MF-2 category earlier in point of time, it
was also permissible for the petitioner to take
appropriate steps for its recovery as permissible in law.
(3) 45.wp.872.2018
Reliance is placed upon Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another Vs.
Rahamatullah Khan Alas Rahamjulla, [2020(4) SCC
650] and so also the Full Bench of this Court in
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Sindhudurg Kudal Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai
and another [2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 884].
5. Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the
respondent does not dispute the proposition laid down in
Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (supra) and the Electricity Ombudsman (supra),
he however, contends that the petitioner would not be
entitled to recovery any amount whatsoever on the
ground, that the same was result of the negligence on
the part of the petitioner, which has resulted in waiver of
the right to recover.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant
Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
(supra) has categorically held that Section 56(2) of the
Electricity Act, did not permit the petitioner, to
disconnect the electricity supply, it however permitted
the petitioner for raising an additional or supplementary
demand even after the limitation having been expired,
under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, in case of
mistake or bona fide error. However, this demand, under
Section 56(2) could not exceed a period of two years as
(4) 45.wp.872.2018
contemplated by Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act and
for satisfaction of the claim for the earlier period, it was
open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings
as permissible in law. The judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court is also in consonance with what has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Engineer (D1),
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra). In light of
what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (supra), the disconnection notice dated
3.5.2017, has rightly been quashed by the learned CGRF.
However, the order of the CGRF in so far as relates to
quashing of the demand for the period November 2013
to December 2016 by its letter dated 25.1.2017 would
run contrary to what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited (supra) in case the demand is restricted
to a period of two years prior to the notice dated
25.1.2017. In that view of the matter, it is held that the
petitioner would be entitled to raise a supplementary
demand in MF-2 category upon the respondent from
26.1.2015 till 25.1.2017. In so far as the amount for the
earlier period is concerned, the bill dated 25.1.2017
would not be legal and valid, however, it would be open
for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for
its recovery, if permissible in law. The directions as
contained in para (e) and (f) of the order of the CGRF
dated 31.7.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(5) 45.wp.872.2018
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in
the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:11.08.2022
17:12
