MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED vs. VASHI FANTASIA BUSINESS PARK PREMISES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

2023:BHC-AS:34382
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 1/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15025 OF 2022
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd
...Petitioner
V/s.
Vashi Fantasia Business Park
Premises Co-operative Society
Ltd.
..Respondents
---
Mr. Rahul Sinha a/w. Mr. Soham Bhalerao, i/by DSK Legal, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Hegde, Senior Counsel i.by. Ms. Tanisha K. for the
Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved on : 2 November 2023.
Pronounced on : 8 November 2023.
JUDGMENT :
1.
The case presents a unique conundrum - whether consumer,
or a group of consumers can be forced by an Electricity
Distribution Company to opt for High Tension (HT) connection
against their desire to have multiple Low Tension (LT)
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 2/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

connections ? The question arises on account of refusal by
Petitioning Company to provide 24 LT connections to group of
office owners in a commercial complex for operation of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Group Air Conditioning Systems and its
insistence that the Society formed by the office owners must
operate the VRF or Centralized AC system (along with other
common facilities) by opting for a single HT connection/meter.
The Petitioning company insists that office owners in ‘Vashi
Fantasia Business Park’ must subscribe to single H.T. connection of
480kW/240kW for operating the common Air Conditioning
System in the offices located in the building. The office owners, on
the other hand, have clubbed themselves together into 24 groups
and have applied for 24 separate connections of 24 kW each for
operating Air Conditioning system in their respective offices.
2.
The issue arises on account of challenge set up by Petitioning
Company to Orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum (CGRF) on 3 January 2022 in Case No.42/2021-22 and 29
July 2022 in Review Case No.183/2021-22.
3.
The dispute essentially arises on account of the manner in
which the building is constructed by the Developer, which initially
envisaged operation of a Centralised Air Conditioning System
without leaving any space for keeping individual outdoor
compressor units. The Petitioning-Company sanctioned 40 meters/
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 3/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

connections to the building for operation of the Air Conditioning
system, which according to it, was a mistake and that only a single
H.T. connection ought to have been provided for operation of
Centralised Air Conditioning system. On account of non-payment
of electricity charges in respect of those 40 meters by the Developer,
the said 40 meters/connections were permanently disconnected.
4.
Faced with the situation of disconnection of electricity
for operation of Centralised Air Conditioning System, the office
owners installed individual Air Conditioners by placing Air
Conditioning Compressor Units in the corridors of the building.
The Fire Officer of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
issued Notice directing removal of A.C. Compressor units kept in
the corridors of the building. The Petitioning Company was also
directed to ensure removal of A.C. Compressor Units from the
corridors of the building.
5. The office owners thus faced a situation where the
Centralised Air Conditioning System is inoperational and there is
no space in the building to keep outdoor A.C. Compressor Units.
They came together and formed 24 groups to install VRF Group
A.C. Systems. The VRF System allows multiple indoor units to run
on the same system through common compressor. In the present
case, common compressors are proposed to be installed on the
terrace of the building in order to solve the problem of fire hazard
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 4/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

caused due to placement of outdoor A.C. compressor units in the
corridors of the building. The office owners accordingly made an
application to the Petitioning Company for seeking 24 connections
for supply to VRF group Air Conditioning Systems on 28
December 2020. The Sub-Divisional Office of the Petitioner
replied vide letter dated 25 January 2021 advising the office owners
to go for single HT connection as the load was crossing 150 kW
stating that a single connection can be used for all amenities like
light, waterpump, staircases, etc. Aggrieved by the Petitioner’s
refusal to provide 24 connections, Respondent-Society approached
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), MSEDCL
Division by filing Case No.42/2021-22. Petitioner appeared before
the CGRF and filed its reply. The CGRF passed order dated 3
January 2022 allowing the grievance and directed the Petitioning
Company to provide 24 meters/connections to the Respondent-
Society.
6.
Petitioning Company sought review of CGRF’s order by
filing Review Case No.183/2021-22, which came to be rejected by
CGRF by order dated 29 July 2022. Aggrieved by the decisions of
the CGRF dated 3 January 2022 and 29 July 2022, the Petitioning
company has filed the present petition.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 5/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

7.
Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel would appear on behalf
of the Petitioning Company and invite my attention to Commercial
Circular No.110, which according to him, bars provision of multiple
meters/connections for use of common facilities. He would submit
that VRF Air Conditioning System sought to be installed by the
office owners of the Respondent-Society is by way of a common
facility, for which multiple meters/connections cannot be issued. He
would submit that the CGRF has erred in holding that absence of
the word ‘Air Conditioning’ in the Commercial Circular No.110
would make it inapplicable to the present case. That the object
behind issuing Commercial Circular No.110 is to provide common
connection/meter for common facilities and therefore it is not
necessary to name each and every facility for which common
connection can be provided. According to him, the common
connection facilities can be countless and the Commercial Circular
No.110 does not include an exhaustive list of such common
facilities.
8. Mr. Sinha would then rely upon provisions of
Regulation No. 2.2.5 of the Conditions of Supply based on The
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply
Code & Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005
(Regulations) in support of his contention that regardless of
provisions of Commercial Circular No.110, Regulation No. 2.2.5
specifically prohibits provision of more than one independent
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 6/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

power supply connection for an identical purpose in common
premise. He would invite my attention to the comparative chart
presented before the CGRF showing loss of revenue to the
Petitioning Company on account of provision of 24 separate
connections as compared to single H.T. connection. He would pray
for setting aside the orders passed by the CGRF.
9.
Mr. Hegde the learned senior advocate appearing for
the respondent society would oppose the petition and support the
orders passed by CGRF. According to him, the Petitioning
Company is unnecessarily insisting on provision of single HT
connection when the office owners are merely attempting to solve
the problem created by the developer in not providing space for
keeping outdoor compressor units. That Commercial Circular
No.110 has no application to the present case where 24 connections
are not sought as a common facility for the entire society. That the
said 24 connections are sought for providing air conditioning to
individual offices. That therefore the Society, is not supposed to pay
the electricity charges for air conditioning provided to individual
offices. That the common facilities such as staircase, lift, water
pump etc. cannot be placed on same pedestal as that of air
conditioning in individual offices. He would submit that the action
of the Petitioning-Company is otherwise discriminatory as it has
from time to time provided L.T. connections to the Developer even
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 7/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

in common areas as and when demanded. He would pray for pray
for dismissal of the petition.
10. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
11.
Denial of 24 separate connections/meters for providing
air conditioning facility to the office of the Respondent-Society is
denied by the Petitioning company by essentially relying upon
Commercial Circular No.110 dated 16 February 2010 and
Regulation No.2.2.5. Petitioning company also complains that
provision of 24 separate meters would cause revenue loss to it as
compared to provision of single HT connection. This has been
demonstrated by petitioning company as under :

::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 8/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

12.
It does appear that provision of single HT connection of
480 kW/240 Kva enables Petitioning company to earn higher
revenues as compared to providing 24 separate connections of
24kW each. The issue is whether the revenue loss which may be
suffered by Petitioning company by providing 24
connections/meters could be the only justifiable reason for
insistence on of provision of single HT connection. It would be
appropriate to refer the Commercial Circular No.110 dated 16
February 2010, on which much emphasis is placed by Mr. Sinha,
which reads thus:
PR-3/TARIFF/ No-4778 DATE: 16 FEB 2010
COMMERCIAL CIRCULAR No. 110
Subject: Clubbing of common meters of Residential Housing
Societies & Commercial Complexes.
In the Urban areas, fast development, is taking place and
large construction activities are in progress. These construction activities
mainly are for Residential & Commercial complexes. The MSEDCL plays
important part in this development by providing power supply.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 9/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

In many Residential Housing Societies & Commercial
Complexes it is observed that separate connections for separate purposes
i.e. common lighting, lift, water pump, stair case etc. are released. Though
many of the Residential Housing Societies & Commercial Complexes pay
their electricity by due date, there are many societies/ complexes, who do
not pay for either one or two connections out of three provided for the
common purpose. Despite disconnection for arrears, the Housing
Societies/ Commercial Complexes may restore the supply from the
connection which is live. Moreover, with the already over burdened O &
M staff, the detection of such type of unauthorized use of electricity
becomes difficult.
Prior to formation of MERC, separate connection to
common lighting, water pump, lift and stair case used to be released and
for which separate service line charges for each purpose was recovered.
Need was not felt at that time for separate instructions for releasing such
connections & applying specific category as such societies were very small
in numbers, MERC has determined the "Schedule of Charges" w.e.f. 8th
September 2006 wherein Commission has not permitted to recover
Service Line Charges from prospective consumers and only Service
Connection Charges based on the load applied for are recoverable. Also,
the number of Housing Societies/Commercial Complexes have increased
considerably and their growth rate is positive. It has become necessary to
issue common guidelines for releasing such connection and applying
uniform tariff category for all connections throughout the State.
In view of above, if only one common connection is
provided for such type of Residential Housing Societies & Commercial
Complexes, instead of giving separate three or four connections it will
reduce expenses of manpower and materials, reduce cost of maintenance,
increase revenue as the units used & registered in a single meter will
attract higher slab of tariff. Prompt payment by such consumers is
expected as default would result in disconnection, leading to stoppage of
lift, Common area lighting & Water Pump service simultaneously. Also
this will be in line with the MERC Regulations and MSEDCL's
Commercial Circulars.
1) Common connection is to be given to Residential Housing Societies
& Commercial Complexes for common lighting, lift, water pump and
stair case etc. (This common connection should be 1 phase or 3 phase
supply depending on the load applied.)
2) Residential/Commercial tariff as per main purpose of usage of
electricity is to be made applicable to such common connection.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 10/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

3) Existing separate connections in Residential Housing Societies &
Commercial Complexes are to be clubbed in to one common
connections in a phased manner within a period of 6 months.
4) IT System data to be updated immediately after amalgamation of the
connections & proper bills are to be issued by field offices.
All field officers are requested to take due note of the decision and
take necessary action accordingly.
Sign/-
Chief Engineer (Commercial)
13. Perusal of the Commercial Circular No.110 would
indicate that the objective behind issuing the same was to
essentially deal with cases where housing societies/complexes were
not paying electricity charges in respect of one or two connections
out of multiple connections provided for common purposes. It was
observed by the Petitioning company that even if one or two of
multiple electricity connections were disconnected on account of
default, the housing society/commercial complexes were restoring
supply from other connections which were live. Such modus
adopted by the housing societies/commercial complexes was
overburdening the operation and maintenance staff of the
Petitioning company with the work of detection of such
unauthorized type of use of electricity. It is essentially to tackle this
situation that the Commercial Circular No.110 prescribed provision
of one common connection for all types of residential housing
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 11/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

societies/commercial complexes instead of providing multiple
connections. True it is that one of the objectives for providing
single common connection is to increase revenue on account of
attraction of higher slab of tariff through common connection.
However reading of the Circular as a whole would indicate that
earning higher revenues is not the main objective why the system of
providing one common connection was introduced. The main
objective is to prevent misuse of multiple connections by defaulting
payment in respect one/two connections and enjoying
uninterrupted supply though live connections.
14.
CGRF has proceeded to discard Commercial Circular
No.110 by holding that it has no application to the present case as
the word ‘Air Conditioning’ is not reflected in the Circular. I am
unable to agree with CGRF’s finding in this regard. Common
lighting, lift, water pump, staircases are just some of the inclusive
items which are sought to be illustrated in Commercial Circular
No.110. The said items are not exhaustive by any means. Infact as
rightly suggested by Mr. Singh, if a housing society or commercial
complexe replaces staircase with escalators, the Petitioning company
is not obliged to provide a separate electricity connection in respect
of such escalators on the ground that the word ‘escalator’ is not to
be found in the Commercial Circular. Expecting use nomenclature
of each and every common facility for including in an exhaustive
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 12/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

list in the Commercial Circular No. 110 would be a skewed and
myopic reading thereof. Therefore it was not necessary for the
Petitioning company to provide an exhaustive list of common
facilities for which single common connection needs to be provided
under Commercial Circular No.110. Every common facility used by
housing societies/complexes would be covered by Commercial
Circular No.110.
15.
The next issue is whether the provision of air
conditioning facility to individual offices can be treated as a
common facility for all members of a housing society/ commercial
complex. According to Mr. Sinha any facility which is used by
multiple members of a housing society/commercial complex would
be a common facility and each such facility would be covered by
Commercial Circular No. 110. Mr. Sinha would highlight cases of
shopping complexes or malls where air conditioning system is a part
of common facility. He expresses an apprehension that the
impugned Orders of CGRF would be quoted by such malls and
shopping complexes for claiming multiple meters/connections for
different units or floors or sections. Mr. Hedge counters the
apprehension stating that the cases of malls based on rental models
cannot be compared with the present case where the offices are
owned by individual owners. Though Mr. Sinha may not be
entirely wrong in expressing the apprehension, the unique facts of
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 13/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

the present case would place the Respondent Society on a different
pedestal than that of malls or shopping or office complexes.
16. Developer has provided Centralised Air Conditioning
facility, for which Petitioning Company had provided 40 separate
connections/meters. According to it, provision of 40 meters was a
mistake and as it violated Commercial Circular No.110. Be that as it
may. Now it has become academic to determine whether 40 meters
could have been provided for operation of centralized air
conditioning system on account of disconnection of those
connections. The Centralised Air Conditioning System had become
dysfunctional on account of disconnection of 40 electricity
connections/meters due to unpaid electricity charges. The
individual office owners were therefore forced to opt for installation
of individual air conditioning units in their offices. Since the
Developer has not constructed any space for placement of outdoor
Air Conditioning Compressor Units, the office owners placed the
same in the corridors and passages of the building. This caused fire
hazard and the Planning Authority has issued notices to
Respondent-Society as well as the Petitioning company directing
removal of those individual outdoor AC compressors from the
corridors and passages. It is on account of these facts that the office
owners of the Respondent-Society have decided to opt for common
VRF Air Conditioning System by forming 24 groups of office
owners. Installation of such VRF Group Air Conditioning System
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 14/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

would enable them to place the outdoor compressor units on the
terrace of the building. Each group would be responsible for
payment of electricity charges in respect of that individual
connection. In the event of failure on the part of one group to pay
electricity charges for that connection, only that individual
connection would get disconnected, thereby not affecting the other
office owners. This is how the office owners have designed the
system of VRF Group Air Conditioning. This is however not to
suggest that in every building such arrangement must be permitted.
17. Petitioning Company has objection to such VRF Group
Air Conditioning System and it insists that instead of separating the
offices into 24 groups, the office owners must install a single VRF
Group Air Conditioning System or a Centralised Air Conditioning
System by obtaining a single HT electricity connection. Petitioning
company is willing to provide H.T. single electricity connection,
which apparently envisages payment of higher average commercial
unit rate of Rs.11.47/- as against average unit rate of 7.36/- for 24

separate connections. Considering the nature of activity undertaken
by the office owners of Respondent-Society, in my view, provision
of air conditioning system to individual offices cannot be treated as
a common facility by the society in the unique facts and
circumstances of the present case. There is yet another unique
circumstance in the present case. The Developer is apparently
occupying the basement parking area as well as terrace which he has
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 15/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

started exploiting commercially. The Developer applied for two
separate H.T. connections for basement parking area and terrace
and the same has been provided by the Petitioning company to the
Developer on 23 April 2019 and 6 April 2022. This action is
branded as preferential treatment to the Developer by the
Respondent-Society. Petitioning Company justifies provision of
such connections stating that the same is for commercial usages
mad are actually in the nature of individual connections. Without
going into the issue of discrimination, the situation that exists today
is that there would be a separate meter for basement, separate meter
for terrace (both could well be treated as common areas of the
building), whereas the Petitioning company is insisting that one
common H.T. connection must be procured for all other common
facilities for providing electricity to common light, lift, waterpump,
staircase and also Air Conditioning system. In my view, this would
be unworkable arrangement in the unique facts and circumstances
of the present case. Mr. Sinha has expressed a genuine difficulty of
the Petitioning company that if such separate meters are permitted
in the Respondent-Society, all other housing and business
complexes would continue to demand separate connection for
providing separate air conditioning facilities even when there is a
Centralised Air Conditioning system in those buildings. In my
view, the interpretation of Commercial Circular No.110 is restricted
to present case in view of unique facts and circumstances and the
same would not uniformly apply to all cases.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 16/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

18.
Reliance of Mr. Sinha on Regulation 2.2.5 of Regulation
would not assist his case. Regulation 2.2.5 reads as follows :
2.2.5 MSEDCL shall not permit any Applicant / Consumer to have
two or more independent power supply connections for an identical
purpose in one common premise. In case the Applicant / Consumer
intends to use the power supply in a common premise for two different
purposes, like Domestic along with Non Domestic or General Motive
Power along with Non - Domestic, etc.; the Applicant / Consumer may
separately apply for independent power supply for each of such purposes,
which the MSEDCL may permit provided release of such two
connections to one common premise for different purposes is found
technically feasible.
19.
Careful perusal of Regulation 2.2.5 would indicate that
the term ‘one common premise’ is used in the context of one flat,
one shop or one godown etc. It does not refer to common facilities
in the housing society or commercial complexes. Infact if the
contention of Mr. Sinha that ‘one common premise’ is interpreted
to mean only common facility of housing society/commercial
complex, the same would enable provision of multiple electricity
connections in one shop, in one flat or in one godown. Therefore,
the correct interpretation of the term ‘one common premise’ would
mean a single flat, shop or godown and not common facilities in a
housing society/commercial complex. Thus Regulation 2.2.5 does
not govern the situation of provision of meter/connection to
common areas in housing societies or commercial complexes.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 17/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

20.
Mr. Sinha has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity, New Delhi (APTEL) in K.
Raheja Corporation Versus. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission & Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
2011 ELR (APTEL) 1170 in which the APTEL has referred to its
previous order dated 24 May 2010 passed in Case No.62 of 2009
holding as under:
25. The Commission in its order dated 24th May, 2010 passed in Case
No. 62 of 2009 observed as follows:
(V) Over the past two to three years, the Commission has come across
similar problems primarily in case of existing Commercial and Office
Complexes regarding supply at single point for distribution to mixed
loads. In such cases, the distribution lincensees have neither installed
the individual meters nor the sub-distribution of electricity is being
regulated in any manner. Though the Commission has directed the
licensees to formulate a practical solution for this problem, there has not
been any signification progress. Hence, the Commission is of the view
that the practical solution being considered in the present case should be
adopted for all such cases of supply at single point for further distribution
to mixed loads, wherein one agency can be appointed as the Distribution
Franchisee through the MoU route, and can supply to the individual users
within the complex. This will ensure that all such cases will come squarely
within the provisions of the EA 2003 which is not the case now.
Firstly, the order of APTEL would not bind this Court and
secondly, the judgment does not, in any manner, seek to address the
issue involved in the present case. The APTEL in the above
judgment has decided the issue whether the Commission’s orders
directing discontinuance of single point supply was legal and valid.
Therefore, the said judgment would have no application to the
present case.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 30/11/2023
Neeta Sawant 18/18 WP-15025-2022-FC
8 November 2023.

21. After considering the overall conspectus of the case, I
find the order passed by the CGRF in the present case to be
unexceptional. It is however clarified that the judgment is rendered
in the unique facts and circumstances of the present case and
cannot be cited as a precedent for cases involving different facts.
22. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
There shall be no order as to costs.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:06:46 :::