Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Black Hill Investment Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 22 January, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:3103
                                                                                       wp-8155-2010 final.doc


                         Shabnoor
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.8155 OF 2010

  SHABNOOR               Maharashtra State Electricity
  AYUB                   Distribution Company Ltd.,
  PATHAN
  Digitally signed by
                         a Company registered under the Companies Act,
  SHABNOOR AYUB
  PATHAN                 1956 having address at Rasta Peth, Urban Circle,
  Date: 2026.01.22
  12:18:01 +0530         Pune - 411 011
                         Through the office of the Superintending Engineer
                                                                                       ... Petitioner

                                          V/s.

                          1. Black Hill Investment Pvt. Ltd.
                             92/93, Koregaon Park Pune - 411 001
                             And also having address at
                             10-B, Bakhtawar, Nariman Point
                             Mumbai - 400 021.

                          2. The Electricity Ombudsman
                             606, Keshava, Bandra Kurla Complex,
                             Bandra (East) Mumbai - 400 051.                           ... Respondents



                         Mr. Mohammed Oomar Shaikh i/b M. V. Kini & Co., for
                         the Petitioner.
                         Mr. P. Kumar N. Jain i/b Prakash Punjabi, for
                         Respondent No.1.



                                                  CORAM             : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  RESERVED ON       : JANUARY 20, 2026

                                                  PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 22, 2026




                                                                1
                        ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026                  ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2026 21:05:05 :::
                                                              wp-8155-2010 final.doc


 JUDGMENT:

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17 December 2009 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman and the review order dated 21 June 2010. By the said orders, the Electricity Ombudsman partly allowed the claim of respondent No.1. The Ombudsman directed the petitioner to apply the High Tension (HT) VI tariff to respondent No.1 for the period from 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008. The Ombudsman further directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount recovered from respondent No.1 with interest under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act.

2. The relevant facts are as follows. In 2006, one Ms. Marry Wadia approached the Superintending Engineer (RPUC), MSEDCL seeking change of tariff from HT I to HT VI. The petitioner informed Ms. Wadia that under the MERC order dated 1 December 2003, HT VI tariff applied to residential or commercial complexes taking supply at a single point and sub distributing it further through individual meters. HT I tariff applied to all HT industrial and other HT consumers exclusively situated in Mumbai and Pune metropolitan areas. Respondent No.1 owns a single residential bungalow divided into three internal sub-units. Respondent No.1 alone owns the entire bungalow and it does not constitute a group housing society. The petitioner states that there was no separate tariff category for such residential bungalows. MERC issued a clarificatory letter dated 17 September 2008 with effect from 1 June 2008. The Chief Engineer of the petitioner issued Commercial Circular No. 88 dated 26 September 2008 directing that HT residential consumers be charged under LT I tariff. Ms. Marry

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

Wadia applied for change of consumer from assignor to respondent No.1. After that application, the electricity connection stood transferred from Ms. Wadia to respondent No.1. On 6 June 2007, respondent No.1 executed an agreement with MSEDCL for supply of electricity to his residential bungalow. The agreement provided for HT supply. Respondent No.1 agreed to pay charges as per HT I tariff schedule.

3. On 29 January 2009, respondent No.1 submitted a representation to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGR Cell) of the petitioner seeking conversion of tariff from HT I to HT VI. The petitioner issued a communication dated 20 March 2009 stating that HT I tariff was applicable as per the prevailing MERC guidelines. Respondent No.1 then filed a complaint before the IGR Cell stating that although he was an HT residential consumer, he was billed under LT I domestic category. He claimed that the closest applicable tariff was HT VI tariff.

4. Respondent No.1 sought billing under HT VI tariff and requested correction of the tariff from the date of applicability. Respondent No.1 further sought refund of excess payment caused by wrongful billing.

5. The petitioner filed its reply before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), MSEDCL. The petitioner stated that the MERC order dated 12 September 2008 did not clarify the tariff applicable to HT residential consumers. The petitioner therefore issued a letter dated 12 August 2008 to MERC seeking clarification regarding the applicable tariff for residential consumers availing

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

HT supply. MERC by its order dated 17 September 2008 clarified that residential consumers using HT supply should be charged under LT I tariff with effect from 1 June 2008. The petitioner therefore states that Commercial Circular No. 88 dated 26 September 2008 levying LT I residential tariff was correct. On this basis, CGRF dismissed the complaint of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved, filed a representation before the Electricity Ombudsman on 15 September 2009. The Electricity Ombudsman by order dated 17 December 2009 partly allowed the representation and directed levy of HT VI tariff for the period from 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008 and refund of excess recovery with interest under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application pointing out the MERC clarification applying LT I tariff to HT residential consumers. The review application was rejected. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition challenging both the orders.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that tariff determination, tariff classification and tariff clarification are functions that lie only with the Regulatory Commission under Sections 61, 62 and 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He submitted that these functions cannot be exercised by grievance redressal authorities. Once the MERC issued its clarification dated 17 September 2008 stating that residential consumers taking HT supply are to be billed under LT I tariff, such clarification became binding on all distribution licensees including the petitioner, as well as on the CGRF and the Electricity Ombudsman. He submitted that retrospective application of HT VI tariff and direction to

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

refund with interest is inconsistent with the statutory framework and that reliance on Section 62(6) is incorrect. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. The petitioner stated that in the review application they had provided comparative tariff figures as follows: (a) HT I tariff at Rs. 3.40 per unit, (b) LT I tariff at Rs. 5.75 per unit for consumption above 500 units, and (c) HT VI tariff at Rs. 2.60 per unit. The petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 failed to consider the financial consequences of allowing respondent No.1 to pay at the lowest slab tariff meant for lower or middle income groups. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 failed to consider the factual position that HT VI tariff applies where there is one point supply and multiple meters for different consumers, such as residential or commercial complexes having multiple units. This category covers group housing societies having multiple flats with individual meters and commercial complexes having multiple units with individual meters. In the present case, respondent No.1 has a single HT supply point with a single meter. Respondent No.1 has three structures, namely a main building, an extension building and an outhouse, all under single ownership. It was submitted that since MERC classified all HT residential consumers under LT I tariff category, it was not open for respondent No.2 to reclassify respondent No.1 under HT VI tariff for the period from 6 July 2007 to May 2008. It was also submitted that respondent No.2 failed to follow the MERC clarification dated 17 September 2008 which specifically provided that LT I tariff is applicable to residential consumers availing supply at HT voltage, and not HT VI

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

tariff which is a concessional tariff applicable only to multiple users through multiple meters for low or middle income groups. It was submitted that respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that the representation was frivolous and filed with the intent to avoid payment of the appropriate tariff and to claim the lowest tariff applicable to group housing. It was submitted that consumers taking HT supply are liable to pay as per LT I tariff.

7. In reply, the learned advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that there was no tariff in force during the period from May 2007 to cover HT residential consumers. He submitted that respondent No.1's premises is a residential bungalow divided into three portions. According to respondent No.1, such premises cannot fall under HT I or HT VI category. He submitted that the MERC clarification took effect from 1 June 2008. Therefore, for the period before that date, respondent No.1 should be placed under the closest tariff category namely HT VI tariff applicable to residential complexes. He submitted that the Electricity Ombudsman has correctly directed application of HT VI tariff only for the period from 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008. He submitted that the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have examined the record and the submissions of the parties. I will state the facts briefly and then deal with the rival contentions and reasons for my conclusion.

9. Respondent No.1 obtained an HT connection for his residential bungalow. The connection underwent a change of name in 2007. On 6 June 2007 respondent No.1 executed an agreement

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

with MSEDCL for supply at HT and agreed to pay as per HT I tariff. Dispute arose about the correct tariff for the period 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008. Respondent No.1 sought reclassification and refund. The petitioner relied on MERC communications and on a commercial circular. MERC issued a clarificatory communication dated 17 September 2008. The MERC clarification had effect from 1 June 2008. The CGRF dismissed respondent No.1's complaint. The Electricity Ombudsman allowed the representation in part by directing levy of HT VI tariff for the period 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008 and ordered refund of excess with interest under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act. The petitioner applied for review and claimed the MERC clarification and the correct tariff figures. The review was rejected. The petitioner challenges both the Ombudsman's order and the review rejection.

10. The Electricity Act vests the power to determine tariff structure and classification with the Regulatory Commission. The tariff schedule and clarifications flow from the Commission. Grievance forums and the Ombudsman must operate within that statutory tariff framework. They cannot make new tariff law. A Commission clarification binds from its stated effective date. The effective date determines when the clarified rule governs billing. A clarification cannot be applied to an earlier period unless the Commission expressly makes it retrospective. Parties may enter an agreement for supply on specified terms. Such agreement shows the contract category between the consumer and the licensee. That agreement cannot override a later regulatory direction; but it is material when assessing what tariff the parties actually accepted at

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

the time of supply. If a consumer proves that the licensee billed in excess of the tariff legally applicable on the billing dates, the consumer is entitled to refund of the excess. Interest may follow as law permits once an excess is established. However a grievance forum cannot award a refund by first choosing a tariff category that did not legally apply for the relevant period.

11. The petitioner's counsel rightly submitted that tariff determination, classification and clarification fall within MERC's domain under Sections 61, 62 and 86. The statutory scheme assigns normative authority to MERC. Grievance bodies cannot substitute their own tariff classifications that conflict with Commission orders. This principle restricts the Ombudsman from effecting a reclassification that rewrites the tariff order for past dates.

12. The clarification is dated and states an effective date of 1 June 2008. That means the clarification governs billing from 1 June 2008 onwards. The clarification does not, on its face, change the legal tariff position for supplies made before that effective date. There is no record of MERC declaring the clarification retrospective to cover earlier periods. Therefore the clarification cannot be used as a legal basis to reclassify supplies that took place before 1 June 2008.

13. HT VI tariff, as described in the record, targets supply arrangements where a single point HT supply is taken for distribution to multiple users and each user has an individual meter. Typical examples are group housing societies or commercial

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

complexes where the supply is sub-distributed through distinct meters. The essential features are single point HT intake and multiple separate consumer meters with independent consumers.

14. The material before me shows that respondent No.1 had a single owner and a single meter. The bungalow comprised three constructions. Those constructions remained under common ownership. There is no material that proves separate sub- distribution to independent consumers by means of separate meters. The respondent did not establish that the premises functioned as a multi-user complex with separate consumers who would properly fall under HT VI. The mere physical division of a building into portions does not convert ownership and supply facts into a multiple-user scenario for HT VI purposes.

15. When a tariff category prescribes multiple independent users through multiple meters, that requirement is material. The record shows the opposite. In that factual position HT VI does not fit. HT I applied as per the contractual understanding and the then prevailing classification relevant to the period before 1 June 2008. The petitioner's submission that HT VI applies only to multiple users with multiple meters is legally sound for the disputed period.

16. Given the above, there are two separate defects in the Ombudsman's direction to apply HT VI and to order a refund with interest for the months 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008. First, the MERC clarification that made residential HT consumers liable to LT I applied from 1 June 2008 only. It does not validate a reclassification of earlier months under a different category

wp-8155-2010 final.doc

contrary to the factual matrix. The Ombudsman cannot rewrite tariff categories for past months where the Commission had not made such a declaration for that earlier time. Second, the factual basis for HT VI is absent. Reclassifying respondent No.1 as HT VI for the disputed months effectively grants a concessionary rate intended for multi-user complexes to a single-owner single-meter residential bungalow. That would frustrate the tariff structure and the logic of category-based pricing. The petitioner has also placed before me comparative tariff figures showing that HT VI would yield a lower rate than HT I and LT I for the period in question.

17. For the reasons stated above the Ombudsman's direction to apply HT VI tariff to respondent No.1 for the period 6 July 2007 to 30 May 2008 is set aside. The direction to refund excess amounts collected for that period together with interest under Section 62(6) is quashed.

18. The writ petition stands disposed of.

19. No order as to costs.

20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)