Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Court-1
APPEAL No. 155 of 2025
rd
Dated : 3 July, 2026
Present: Hon’ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson
Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member

In the matter of:



Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Through the Superintending Engineer
O & M Circle, MSEDCL, Gondia
Maharashtra – 441614
Email: [email protected] … Appellant

Versus

1. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1,
th
13 Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400005
Email: [email protected]


2. M/s Team Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
B 18 to 21, MIDC, Village Mundipar,
PO Dhakni, Taluka & District Gondia
Maharashtra – 441614
Email: [email protected] … Respondent (s)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 1 of 10

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.
Shashwat Kumar
Rahul Chouhan
Harshit Goyal
Mukut Choudhary for App. 1


Counsel for the Respondent(s) : for Res. 1

J U D G M E N T
PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. (in short “MSEDCL”) is aggrieved by the order dated
st
01.08.2024 of the 1 Respondent - Maharashtra Electricity
Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the
nd
Commission”) in case No. 174/2023 filed by the 2 Respondent
seeking implementation of earlier order dated 05.12.2020 passed by
the Commission in its favour in case No. 166 of 2020.
2. While partly allowing the case No. 174 of 2023, the
Commission has passed certain adverse observations against the
Appellant in paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order and has also
imposed penalty of Rs. One lac on the S.E., Gondia of the Appellant
to be recovered from his pocket. For the sake of clarity, we extract
the said paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order hereunder :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 2 of 10

“9.5. Having ruled as above, the Commission cannot
ignore MSEDCL’s casual approach towards proceedings
before this Commission. The present Petition has been
registered on E-filing Portal on 21 August 2023 and vide
notice dated 22 August 2023, MSEDCL was directed to file
its reply within 15 days. Subsequently notice for E-Hearing
was issued on 6 May 2024. But MSEDCL failed to file any
submission till the date of E-Hearing i.e. 21 May 2024.
During the hearing, the Commission has specifically
directed MSEDCL to file its reply on TFAPL’s computation.
But again, MSEDCL has failed to file any submission. The
Commission in its earlier Orders have recorded strong
displeasure about non-fling of replies by MSEDCL on
timely manner. But still, such incidences are repeating.
Hence, the Commission is forced to impose penalty of Rs
1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacs Only) on the Superintending
Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL. Said penalty amount be paid
from pocket from concerned Officer and be deposited in
MERC Office within 15 days from date of this Order.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 3 of 10

3. These adverse observations as well as the imposition of
penalty upon an officer of the Appellant have been assailed in this
appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant. We may note that the Appeal is not
contested by either of the two respondents as neither have they filed
any response to the appeal nor did any counsel appear on their behalf
to advance arguments.
5. Accordingly, we have perused the impugned order as well as
the grounds of appeal and have considered arguments advanced by
the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant.
6. In our considered opinion, the impugned order of the
Commission suffers from fundamental errors and cannot be
sustained for various reasons.
7. It was pointed out during the course of hearing by the Learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant that Appellant had actually filed reply
nd
to the petition of the 2 Respondent vide e-mail on 15.05.2024 even
though belatedly, but the Commission has not taken note of it and
has incorrectly recorded in the impugned paragraph No. 9.5 of the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 4 of 10

order that no reply has been filed by the Appellant. He further pointed
out that in pursuance to order dated 21.03.2024, the Appellant had
submitted its calculations vide email dated 10.07.2024 but again the
Commission ignored the same and proceeded to record incorrectly
that the Appellant has not filed any response to the computation of
nd
2 Respondent.
8. We note that Appellant had filed a review petition also before
the Commission against the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 which
was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025. In the said review order,
the Commission has acknowledged that Appellant had filed reply to
the petition vide email dated 15.05.2024 and had submitted
calculations vide email dated 10.07.2024. The relevant extract of the
said order is as under :-
“2. Petitioner said at Para 2 that he has filed the reply
through Email which was required to be filed in E filing
portal of MERC. Even this reply which was to be filed within
15 days from the notice issued by Hon’ble Commission
which was issued on dt. 22/8/2023 with clear direction to
file the reply on E filing portal within 15 days but as per the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 5 of 10

petitioner he has filed the reply through Email. This mail
was submitted to Commission on dt. 15/5/2024 i.e. after
about 9 months from the date of notice violating the
Commissions directions.
3. On dt. 21/5/2024 during E hearing Hon’ble
Commission directed TFAPL & MSEDCL to submit the
interest calculation sheet within 7 days. TFAPL submitted
the calculation on dt. 23/5/2024 i.e. within 2 days but the
present Petitioner submitted the reply on 10/7/2024 i.e.
after about 50 days from the date of E hearing that too on
Email without filing on E filing portal again violating the
Commissions directions.”
9. Considering these admitted factual aspects, we wonder as how
did the Commission state in paragraph 9.5 of the impugned order that
Appellant has failed to file reply as directed vide notice dated
nd
22.08.2023 and reply to the computation of 2 Respondent as
directed during the hearing dated 21.05.2024. Both these replies had
been received in the Commission’s office vide email albeit not within
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 6 of 10

the time stipulated by the Commission. Therefore, the observations
of Commission in this regard in paragraph No. 9.5 are ex-facie
incorrect thereby dislodging completely the basis on which penalty of
Rs.1 lac was imposed.
10. The Commission ought to have recorded the delayed filing of
replies by the Appellant in the impugned order and then proceeded
to either discard those as having been filed beyond the stipulated time
or upon condoning the delay (with or without costs) considered the
replies while writing the final order. A judicial or a quasi judicial forum
cannot simply ignore any pleadings or document on record. A
reference to all the material pleadings or documents on record must
be made in the final order followed by the reasons for discarding the
same.
11. Hence, the procedure followed by the Commission in the
impugned order by ignoring the replies filed by the Appellant without
giving any reasons therefore, is vitiated and invalid in the eyes of law
which makes the entire order legally untenable and unsustainable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 7 of 10

12. As a sequitur, imposing penalty upon the officer of the Appellant
in pursuance to such procedural irregularity also cannot be sustained
and deserves to be set aside.
13. Further, on the aspect of the imposition of penalty also, we find
that the impugned order smacks of arbitrariness and lack of cogent
reasoning. We concur with the submissions of the Learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant that imposition of penalty upon a specific
officer of an organization is a serious matter and cannot be ordered
in a routine or cavalier manner without first putting the concerned
officer to notice about the perceived defaults attributed to him. A
punitive order like the one with which we are dealing ought not to have
been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The
office of the Appellant upon whom the penalty has been imposed was
entitled to a show cause notice and only in case of no response from
him or upon finding his response unsatisfactory, penalty could have
been imposed. It is settled legal position that principles of natural
justice are not a mere formality but must be adhered to in letter &
spirit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 8 of 10

14. In the instance case, the Commission has nowhere explained
in the impugned order as why it chose to impose the penalty upon
Superintending Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL. How was he alone
responsible for the defaults of the Appellant - MSEDCL is not
discernible from the order. That apart, no show cause notice has been
issued to him before imposing such huge penalty upon him which is
in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The penalty
appears to have been imposed in an arbitrary, illegal, unjust and
casual manner. Failure to seek explanation from the concerned
officer of Appellant before imposing penalty coupled with failure to
give proper and justified explanation for the same undermines the
legal sanctity of the impugned order.
15. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are unable to
sustain the adverse observations against the Appellant in paragraph
No. 9.5 of the impugned order as also the imposition of penalty upon
the Superintending Engineer, Gondia on account of serious
procedure irregularity on the part of the Commission, as explained
hereinabove. In fact such procedural irregularities committed by the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 9 of 10

Commission go to the root of the case and render the entire impugned
order perverse and legally unsustainable.
16. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the penalty imposed upon the
Superintendent Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL and also expunge the
adverse observations against MSEDCL contained in paragraph No.
9.5 of the impugned order. The impugned order stand modified
accordingly.
17. Appeal stands allowed in these terms. All pending IAs stand
disposed of.

rd
Pronounced in the open court on this 3 day of July, 2026.


(Virender Bhat) (Seema Gupta)
Judicial Member Officiating Chairperson

✓
REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

js
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Page 10 of 10