Bombay High Court
Uttam Gyanba Chavan vs Maharashtra State Electric ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:10200-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN 6-WP-4931-2006 judgment.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
DILWALE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2006
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN SHRI UTTAM GYANBA CHAVAN )
DILWALE
303, Uma Ashish, Opp. Techno Petrol )
Date:
2024.03.04 Pump, Kalyan Shil Road, Golivali, Kalyan )
14:18:19 +0530 District - Thane Pin-421304 ) .. Petitioner
Versus.
1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRIC )
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED )
Through its Executive Engineer, having )
office at Kalyan (E), Taluka Kalyan, )
District Thane. )
2. THE DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, )
M. S. R. D. Co., Ltd., S. Dn. I, Netivali )
Sub Section, Near Tata Powerhouse, Shil )
Road, Kalyan (East), Dist-Thane )
3. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) .. Respondents
...
Mr. R. P. Lote a/w Mr. Bhushan Bhadgale for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sumeet Palsudesai i/by Mr. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 &
2.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ
DATE : 1st MARCH 2024.
JUDGEMENT :
1. Since the writ petition is of the year 2006 it has been taken up for
final disposal.
6-WP-4931-2006 judgment.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to order dated
29/03/2006 that was issued to the petitioner purportedly under Section
135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the Act of 2003). A further
prayer has been made re-examine the petitioner's existing electric meter
and to take further steps thereafter.
3. While admitting the writ petition interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (e) subject to deposit of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of three
weeks came to be granted. Since the amount of Rs.30,000/- was
deposited on 12/10/2006 in accordance with the interim order, the
electricity supply was restored to the petitioner's premises.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Limited-MSEDCL was not justified in applying the provisions
of Section 135 of the Act of 2003 by treating the case to be one of theft of
electricity. It is informed that during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the proceedings initiated under Section 135 of the Act of 2003
have been decided by the learned Special Judge, Kalyan and by the
judgment dated 21/04/2019 passed in Special Case No.519 of 2006, the
petitioner stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of
the Act of 2003. In view of this adjudication by the competent Court it
becomes clear that issuance of the aforesaid demand on 29/03/2006
6-WP-4931-2006 judgment.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
under Section 135 of the Act of 2003 has been held to be not justified.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act of
2003 seeking to raise challenge to the aforesaid assessment. In the
affidavit in reply filed by the MSEDCL, it has been stated that since 1/3rd
amount as required by Section 127 of the Act of 2003 had not been
deposited, the appeal had not been entertained.
6. In the light of this adjudication coupled with the interim orders
passed in the writ petition, in our view the following order would serve
the ends of justice:-
a) The demand has made by the MSEDCL on 29/03/2006 shall
be treated as a provisional assessment under Section 126 (3) of the
Act of 2003.
b) The petitioner having deposited an amount of Rs. 30,000/- in
this Court which amount has been withdrawn by the MSEDCL, the
same shall be treated as deposit of 1/3rd amount as required by
Section 127 of the Act of 2003.
c) The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24/04/2006 shall
be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is
noted that this Court by the interim orders 20/11/2013 and
6-WP-4931-2006 judgment.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
17/02/2022 has held in clear terms that the petitioner is not liable
to pay any amount towards arrears/interest on the disputed
amount. This aspects shall be kept in mind while deciding the
appeal. Keeping aforesaid aspects in mind as well as the judgment
dated 21/04/2009 in Special Case No.519 of 2006, the appeal shall
be decided expeditiously by the authority under Section 127 of the
Act of 2003. Subject to aforesaid, the petitioner's request for re-
examining the petitioner's electric meter can be considered by the
competent authority.
d) In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the
said proceedings, he is free to take appropriate steps in that regard.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly
with no order as to costs.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J] [A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
