[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Dhoot Motors Thr Its Manager vs Executive Engineer Admn, Aurangabad ... on 22 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:2636
                                                                      WP-7590-2015
                                                -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO.7590 OF 2015

            The Executive Engineer,
            Nodal Office O & M (Urban Circle),
            M.S.E.D.C.L. Aurangabad                            ... Petitioner

                         Versus
            1.      M/s. Dhoot Motors,
                    Through its Managar,
                    Mr. Manish Dhoot,
                    Adalat Road, Aurangabad.

            2.      G.T.L. Limited,                      }
                    Through Dy. General Manager,         }
                    M.I.D.C., Chikalthana,               } Deleted as per order
                    Aurangabad.                          } dated 02.03.2016.
                                                                ... Respondents

                                               WITH

                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2026
                             IN CA/8020/2025 IN WP/7590/2015
                                          WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8020 OF 2025
                                     IN WP/7590/2015

            Dhoot Motor Through its Manager                    ... Applicant
                        Versus
            Executive Engineer (Admit),
            Nodal Office O & M (Urban Circle),
            MSEDCL, Chhatrapati Sambhaijnagar                  ... Respondent

                                              .....
            Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioner.
            Mr. R. F. Totala, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                              .....
                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                    RESERVED ON : 19 JANUARY 2026
                                  PRONOUNCED ON : 22 JANUARY 2026
                                                                    WP-7590-2015
                                      -2-



JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. At

the joint request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the

stage of admission.

2. Petitioner an Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Aurangabad,

by invoking section 227 of the Constitution of India has set up

following prayers :

"[B] Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman Nagpur in representation No.42/2014 and hold that the revised bill dtd. 14.06.2013 issued to the respondent no.1 consumer is legal and proper, and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

[C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition grant stay to the implementation and execution of the impugned order dtd.05.12.2014 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman Nagpur in Representation No.42/2014, and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

[D] Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause [C].

3. In brief, petitioner's case is that, it is a company

constituted under the Companies Act and is involved in supply of

electricity. Further, according to petitioner, present respondent no.1,

who is its consumer since 1972, is involved in auto servicing and WP-7590-2015

repairing workshop, at Aurangabad. It is, therefore, its case that,

there is Electricity Regulatory Commission, which determines the

tariff and charges levied by the consumer and it is further authorized

to recover the charges by way of tariff, by virtue of regulations and

further Commission is also bestow powers classified the consumer

category.

4. It is further submitted that, in the backdrop of above

powers, petitioner had issued a revised bill to the tune of

Rs.6,94,910/- to the respondent for a period from May 2011 to

March 2013, which was disputed by the respondent consumer.

However, said amount was deposited under protest and thereafter

respondent consumer filed complaint before the Internal Grievance

Redressal Cell, which was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by

respondent dated 08.11.2013.

5. He further submitted that, aggrieved by the above

dismissal, respondent approached Appellate Forum i.e. the Consumer

Grievance Redressal Forum, Aurangabad and such proceedings were

contested by present petitioner and the Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum was pleased to quash the bill under dispute.

However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

Commission had accepted the tariff applicable to the consumer by WP-7590-2015

holding it to be under commercial category, but Forum directed

issuance of revised tariff difference that too only for the period from

August 2012 to March 2013 and not for the period from May 2011 to

March 2013, as claimed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel further pointed out that, again present

respondent as was dissatisfied by the above order of Forum, made a

representation before the Electricity Ombudsman Authority, Nagpur,

who was pleased to allow the said representation by order dated

05.12.2014, which is precisely pointed to be under challenge in this

writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner would point out and

submit that, said Electricity Ombudsman Authority had failed to

consider and appreciate the legal provision enumerated under

Electricity Act, which had empowered petitioner to recover the

electricity charges as per classification and reclassification. That,

there is no dispute that, respondent was considered as a commercial

customer, and the tariff applicable for the same, were liable to be

paid. He pointed out that, Electricity Regulatory Commission had

invited objections from consumers and after affording public hearing,

tariffs were decided and the same were also duly approved by MERC,

however, the Electricity Ombudsman had not appreciated the above WP-7590-2015

provisions and failed to consider the tariff order passed in M.E.R.C.

Case No. 111 of 2009. That, as per tariff order, revision was done.

According to him, such act of the petitioner did not amount to

retrospectively recover the tariffs. That, in fact consumer respondent

was made aware of the entire procedure of determination of tariff

and was thus liable to pay for the quantity of electricity consumed.

Therefore, as according to him, petitioner company being entitled to

recover tariff, retrospectively, the Ombudsman authority ought not

to have passed the impugned order and consequently he urges to

grant the relief as prayed.

Learned counsel for petitioner seek reliance on the case of

Assistant Engineer (D1) v. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla,

AIR OnLine 2020 SC 208; Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v.

Yatish Sharma and Ors., 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 659; Prem Cottex v.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2021 DGLS(SC) 564.

8. After hearing submissions of both sides, the short

controversy in the matter is whether petitioner is entitled to recover

tariff retrospectively.

9. It is emerging that, there is no dispute that, respondent's

business activity is considered as commercial one. There is no WP-7590-2015

further dispute that, The Electricity Regulatory Commission

constituted under Electricity Act determines the tariff which

petitioner is entitled to recover.

10. Record shows that, present respondent after being

served with tariff bill for a period from May 2011 to March 2013

which admittedly was a revised bill to the tune of Rs.6,94,910/-,

though deposited the above amount, had disputed the said bill and

had knocked the doors of Internal Grievance Redressal Cell which is

distribution franchisee of petitioner, complaining out being served on

14.06.2013 a bill titled as provisional bill for tariff difference from

industrial to commercial and pointing out that, till date he has been

charged under the head of industrial unit and that he was not made

known about the change of category about industrial to commercial

and according to him, rather he falls in the category of Industrial

consumer. The said complaint seems to be dismissed by order dated

08.11.2013. Aggrieved by the same, present respondent seems to

have approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,

Aurangabad, who after hearing petitioner as well as the franchisee,

held that, they were not party at the time of deciding tariff, to be not

maintainable as public representatives, various associations were

duly heard by calling necessary suggestions. Finally, it was observed

that, the tariff order No.111 of 2009 and 19 of 2012 as made WP-7590-2015

applicable to commercial LT-II to be justified. However, the Grievance

Redressal Forum made the tariff applicable from 16.08.2012

onwards, clearly holding that, the tariff difference bill served on

respondent, is incorrect and directed the bill to be revised with effect

from August 2012 to March 2013. Thus the bill of Rs.6,94,910/- was

quashed and it was directed that the tariff difference bill to be

computed from August 2012 to March 2013.

11. Record shows that, again disgruntled by the same,

present respondent approached the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur

vide representation no.42 of 2014 which was pleased to allow the

representation of present respondent.

12. In above backdrop, it is to be seen whether levying of

tariff bill retrospectively was at all justified or not. It has come on

record that, so called revision done by the petitioner authority, was

unilateral as there is nothing to show that respondent was consulted

or made aware about the revision of tariff. If at all, the petitioner was

intending or planning for reclassification of the unit of respondent

and though they were justified, it was expected of the said authority

to call upon respondent and talk to him about their such intention of

reclassification.

13. Learned counsel Shri Totala has invited attention of this WP-7590-2015

court to the order of MERC dated 11.02.2003 in Case No.24 of 2001,

which was also taken into account by learned Electricity Ombudsman

Authority, and for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under :

"No retrospectively recovery of arrear can be allowed on the basis of abrupt reclassification of a consumer, even though the same might have been pointed out by the Auditor. Any reclassification must follow a definite process of natural justice and the recovery, if any, would only be prospective."

14. Existence of this order is not disputed by petitioner.

Therefore, admittedly there is nothing to demonstrate that before the

act of reclassification, there was consultation of respondent in any

manner. There is nothing to indicate that, prior notice of hearing

which clearly suggest that there is denial of principles of natural

justice. In view of very order of MERC reproduced above, learned

Electricity Ombudsman authority, was justified in partly allowing the

representation directing refund to the present respondent with

interest.

Though learned counsel for petitioner has relied on above

citations, facts in those cases are distinct and cannot be made

applicable, in the case in hand. For above reasons, petition fails.