The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd And Another vs M/S Sai Kaveri Petroleum Through Vilas Murlidhar Kadu

2026:BHC-AUG:20758
Dilwale 1 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
29 WRIT PETITION NO. 13353 OF 2019

The Executive Engineer }
Maharashtra State Electricity }
Distribution Company Ltd, }
Shrirampur Division, }
District Ahmednagar. }
The Nodal Officer }
(Executive Engineer) }
Maharashtra State Electricity }
Distribution Company Ltd. }
Ahmednagar }
District Ahmednagar }
Petitioners
(Orig. Opponents)
Versus
M/s. Sai Kaveri Petroleum }
Through Vilas s/o Murlidhar Kadu }
Age : Major, Occu : Business }
At Post Lohgaon, Nagar-Manmad Road }
Tq. Rahata, District. Ahmednagar }
Respondent
(Orig. Complainant)
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Mundhe Sanjay V.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Chandrakant R Throat And Omprakash D
Totawad
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27.04.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties at the stage of admission.

Dilwale 2 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2018 passed
by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nashik (CGRF) in
proceeding bearing no.648/38/17/18/116.
3. The brief facts of the case:-
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an authority of
the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, engaged
in distribution and supply of electricity under the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”). The respondent is a consumer,
carrying on a petrol pump. The respondent obtained electricity supply on
12th July, 2011. As per Commercial Circular No.175 and Tariff order
th
dated 16 August 2022 passed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
CommissioTotawad n (MERC) in Case No.19/2012, carrying on petrol
pump falls Totawad under LT-II (Non-Residential / Commercial) category.
th
3.2 The authorities, on 20 September 2017, upon verification of the
installation, noticed irregularities. It was observed that the respondent
was being billed under Industrial Tariff instead of Commercial Tariff.
Accordingly, the concerned Sub-Division of the petitioner issued an
th
assessment bill dated 7 October 2017 for an amount of Rs.3,57,810/-.
Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Internal
th
Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) on 4 December 2017. After considering
the contentions of both sides, the grievance came to be rejected, holding
that categorization of the consumer was proper in view of Commercial
th
Circular No.175 and Tariff order dated 16 August 2022 passed by

Dilwale 3 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in Case
No.19/2012. Being further aggrieved, the respondent approached the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Nashik. The CGRF, after
hearing both sides, partly allowed the grievance and directed the
petitioner to revise the assessment bill of Rs.3,57,810/-. It further
th
directed that commercial tariff be applied from 9 October 2017. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mundhe submits that
the impugned order passed by the CGRF is contrary to the facts on
record. He submits that the respondent is carrying on the business of
petrol pump, which is classified under the Commercial category as per
th
Commercial Circular No.175 and Tariff order dated 16 August 2022
passed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in
Case No.19/2012. However, the respondent-consumer was erroneously
billed under the Industrial tariff category since the year 2011. This
th
irregularity came to be noticed on 20 September 2017 during spot
inspection.
5. Pursuant to the spot inspection, the petitioner-company issued an
th
assessment bill towards differential charges for the period from 12 July
2011 till October 2017. It was the contention of the petitioner that
though judgments of the this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court were
cited before the CGRF, the same were not considered. It was contended
that the bar of two years under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003

Dilwale 4 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

would not apply to such recovery, even if the period exceeds two years.
6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the
following judgments:—
i) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v.
Suhasini D. Naik, AIR Online 2024 BOM 1209.
ii) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v.
Electricity Ombudsman and ors., 2019 AIR (Bom) 113.
iii) Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and
Another v. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla, 2020 (4) SCC 650.
iv) Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 2021
DGLS(SC) 564
v) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. M/s.
Jamiya Mohamad Education Society, AIR 2024 Bombay 379.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Thorat and
Mr. Totawad supports the impugned order passed by the CGRF. He
submits that the respondent is running a petrol pump, which is an
industrial undertaking, and has been regularly paying electricity bills
under the Industrial tariff category.
8. He submits that the primary activity of the respondent falls within
the ambit of industrial activity. According to him, till the spot inspection
th
conducted on 20 September 2017, the petitioner had consistently billed
the respondent under the Industrial tariff category, which was
appropriate and justified.
9. It is further submitted that the change in tariff category from

Dilwale 5 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

th
Industrial to Commercial, pursuant to the inspection dated 20
September 2017, and issuance of the assessment bill with retrospective
th
effect from 12 July 2011, is illegal and unsustainable. The respondent,
therefore, approached the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell contending
that the unit is an industry and does not involve any commercial activity.
10. The learned counsel submits that there was no fault or
misrepresentation on the part of the respondent. The respondent had
been continuously charged under the Industrial tariff category since 2011
till October, 2017, and only after the spot inspection, the tariff category
came to be changed.
11. It is further submitted that such reclassification of tariff cannot be
equated with a case of escaped billing or clerical error. Therefore,
recourse to recovery under Section 56 of the Act is not permissible. He
submits that the CGRF has rightly appreciated these aspects and has
correctly directed revision of bills and refund of excess amount recovered
pursuant to the assessment bill. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the
learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, there is
no dispute that the respondent has been carrying on the business since
2011. Upon considering the nature of activities of the respondent, the
Flying Squad submitted its report and, based thereon, the assessment bill

Dilwale 6 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

came to be issued to the respondent on the premise that the respondent’s
classification falls under Commercial use.
13. This Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited (supra) has held in paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10, which
read thus:-
“8. CGRF then has taken into consideration the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prem Cottex (supra) and has held that the
electricity company can recover electricity bill for bonafide mistake and it is
further held that the mistake in this case is not bonafide and therefore the
judgment has no application thereto. With this discussion the grievance
Case No. 071 of 2022 was partially allowed. Electricity company was
directed to revise supplementary bill issued in June -2022 considering 793
units for the month of November- 2020 after adjusting the payment made
by the consumer and the interest was also directed be waived.
9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the Judgment of a three
Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala
State Electricity Board and Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 663), after taking
into consideration judgment in case of Prem Cottex (Supra) and Assistant
Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs.
Rahamatullah Khan has passed judgment and it would be fruitful to refer to
the relevant paragraph Nos. 122 to 136 thereof which read thus:
“122…………….
129. The second issue pertains to the implication of the period
of two years provided in Section 56(2) on the civil remedies of
Utilities to recover electricity dues. Section 56(2), which begins
with a non obstante clause, provides a limitation of two years for
recovery of dues by the licensee through the means of
disconnecting electrical supply. It puts a restriction on the right
of the licensee to recover any sum due from a consumer under
Section 56 after a period of two years from the date when such
sum became first due. If this provision is invoked against a
consumer after two years, the action will be permissible when
the sum, which was first due, has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. Under
Section 56, the liability to pay arises on the consumption of
electricity and the obligation to pay arises when a bill is issued
by the licensee for the first time. Accordingly, the period of
limitation of two years starts only after issuance of the bill.
130. Before we deal with the implication of Section 56(2) on the
civil remedies available to a licensee, it is important to clarify
that when the liability incurred by a consumer is prior to the
period when the 2003 Act came into force, then the bar of
limitation under Section 56(2) is not applicable. In Kusumam
Hotels Pvt Ltd v. Kerala State Electricity Board, this Court has

Dilwale 7 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

held that Section 56(2) applies after the 2003 Act came into
force and the bar of limitation under Section 56(2) would not
apply to a liability incurred by the consumer prior to the
enforcement of the Act. In terms of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act 1897, the liability incurred under the previous
enactment would continue and the claim of the licensee to
recover electricity would be governed by the regulatory
framework which was in existence prior to the enforcement of
the 2003 Act.
131………..”
10. It is thus clear from this judgment, that it is open for the electricity
company to issue a revised bill if it is found that the previous bill issued is
under bonafide mistake. In the instant case, revised bill has been issued
with specific contention that multiplying factor 1 instead of 20 was applied.
There is no dispute made by the consumer with regard to this fact. If it is
so, it does not stand to any reason or justification to hold that this is not
bonafide mistake of the electricity company, as observed by CGRF. In view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C.
Ninan(supra), the electricity company is within its right to issue revised bill
once such bonafide mistake is found out.”
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Cottex (supra),
particularly in paragraph nos.23 to 25, has stated as follows:-
“23. Coming to the second aspect, namely, the impact of Sub-section (1)
on Sub-section (2) of Section 56 , it is seen that the bottom line of Sub-
section (1) is the negligence of any person to pay any charge for electricity.
Sub-section (1) starts with the words “where any person neglects to pay
any charge for electricity or any some other than a charge for electricity
due from him.
24. Sub-section (2) uses the words “no sum due from any consumer
under this Section”. Therefore, the bar under Sub-section (2) is relatable to
the sum due under Section 56 . This naturally takes us to Sub-section(1)
which deals specifically with the negligence on the part of a person to pay
any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity.
What is covered by s ection 56 , under sub-section (1), is the negligence on
the part of a person to pay for electricity and not anything else nor any
negligence on the part of the licensee.
25. In other words, the negligence on the part of the licensee which led
to short billing in the first instance and the rectification of the same after
the mistake is detected, is not covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 56.
Consequently, any claim so made by a licensee after the detection of their
mistake, may not fall within the mischief, namely, “no sum due from any
consumer under this Section”, appearing in Sub-section (2).”
15. Considering the issue involved, it is necessary to refer to Section 56
of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads thus:—

Dilwale 8 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

“56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.–
(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum
other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the
generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or
wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may,
after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such
person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other
sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or
disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of
such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may
have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may
discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any
expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are
paid, but no longer:Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut
off if such person deposits, under protest,–
(a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
(b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on
the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the
preceding six months,whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute
between him and the licensee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being
in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be
recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum
became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee
shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. ”
16. Upon perusal of Section 56(2) of the Act, it is evident that the bar
contained therein is not only in respect of disconnection of supply but
also operates against recovery of dues beyond the prescribed period,
unless the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.
17. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the respondent
th
obtained electricity supply on 12 July 2011. As per Commercial Circular
No.175 dated 05th September, 2012, the business of petrol pump falls
under LT-II (Non-Residential / Commercial) category.
18. Merely because the respondent was erroneously billed under the
Industrial tariff due to certain irregularities, the same cannot be a ground

Dilwale 9 29-WP-13353-19.odt JUDGMENT

to continue such classification, if in fact the activity falls within the
Commercial category. Once the business of petrol pump is classified as
Commercial, the respondent is liable to pay charges in accordance with
the applicable Commercial tariff.
19. It is necessary to note that the petitioner is bound to follow the
regulations and tariff classifications framed by the Maharashtra Electricity
Regulatory Commission. Once the activity of the respondent is
categorized as Commercial, the billing must necessarily be aligned with
such classification.
th
20. In that view of the matter, the assessment bill issued on 7 October
2017, pursuant to the spot inspection, for recovery of differential charges
on account of wrong tariff application, cannot be said to be illegal merely
because the respondent was previously billed under the Industrial
category.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the CGRF
has committed an apparent error while allowing the representation filed
by the respondent. The impugned order, therefore, warrants interference.
Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum, Nashik (CGRF) in proceeding bearing
no.648/38/17/18/116 is hereby quashed and set aside.

Dilwale 10 29-WP-13353-19.odt

JUDGMENT
iii. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
iv. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE