Maha. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Thr. The Executive Engineer (Admin), O And M Circle vs Sms Limited, Cetp-1, Textile Zone, Additional Midc, Amravati

2026:BHC-NAG:7385
WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2056 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd., Through
the Executive Engineer (Admin), O &
M Circle, Vidhyut Bhavan, Camp
Road, Amravati.
VERSUS... ...
RESPONDENT : SMS Limited CETP-1, Textile Zone,
Additional MIDC, Amravati
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J .
RESERVED ON : 15/04/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 05/06/2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S.V. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S.V. Bhutada, learned counsel for the respondent sole.
2. Rule.
3. This petition filed by Maharashtra Electricity Distribution
Company Limited (MSEDCL) raises a challenge to the final order dated
15.01.2025 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Amravati, in CGRF Case No.56/2024, by which the complaint filed by
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
2
the respondent herein was allowed and the MSEDCL was directed to
set-aside the Debit Bill Adjustment amount of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/-
alongwith interest and Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) till date. The
petitioner is referred hereinafter as “MSEDCL” and respondent sole is
referred hereinafter as “Consumer”.
4. The controversy in the instant petition arises in the
backdrop of the following facts :-
i. The consumer has filed a grievance under Regulation 7 of
MERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2020 challenging
retrospective recovery of VM Subsidy of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/-,
vide complaint No.56/2024.
ii. The respondent has been a consumer of MSEDCL since
22.12.2016 under HT Industrial Category with a CD 1100 kVA
having its consumer No.364339007310. The consumer claims to
be a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) situated at Textile
Park AAIA, Nandgaon-Peth, MIDC, Amravati, wherein it uses
waste effluent as raw materials, which is treated through various
processes giving clean water as its out put.
iii. In accordance with the Government Resolution dated
29.06.2016, the MSEDCL granted subsidy to the consumer on its
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
3
Electricity Bills. The subsidy was accordingly sanctioned and
awarded from the year 2017 to 2021.
iv. For the month of July-2023, the MSEDCL issued the
Electricity Bill dated 03.08.2023, in which apart from the other
amounts, an amount of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/- was shown as “Debit
Bill Adjustment”.
v. The consumer thereafter, raised a billing dispute before
the Learned Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Amravati
vide CGRF Case No.56/2024.
vi. MSEDCL appeared and contested the said dispute.
vii. By the final order dated 15.01.2025 the dispute /
complaint came to be allowed and the CGRF, Amravati directed
the MSEDCL to set-aside the “Debit Bill Adjustment” amount
alongwith interest and DPC till date.
viii. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the MSEDCL, has
filed the instant petition.
5. Advocate Shri Shridhar V. Purohit, learned counsel for the
petitioner/MSEDCL advanced elaborate submissions, which are briefly
stated thus :-
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
4
i. The complaint filed by the consumer was not
maintainable in view of the Clause 7.9(d) of the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2020
since, the bill amount was not in dispute and the only grievance
is about the amount as “Debit Bill Adjustment”, which is based
on non-grant of subsidy by the Government.
ii. The complaint deserved to be dismissed since, the CGRF
had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters pertaining to the
grant/ non-grant of subsidy by the Government. By relying upon
the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter
of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Vs.
M/s. Meera Enterprise, Through its Proprietor in Writ Petition
No.6409/2024 decided on 20.01.2025, he submitted that in the
grievance against the non-grant of subsidy by the Government,
the CGRF had no jurisdiction and the complaint deserved to be
dismissed on that count alone.
iii. In this regard, the petitioner had also placed reliance on
the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai, in the matter of
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
5
M/s. Gajkesari Steels & Alloys Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra
State Electricity Distribution Company Limited in Case
No.7/2023 decided on 25.05.2023 and submitted that the
Commission had no jurisdiction in the matter of grant or
non-grant of subsidy by the Government of Maharashtra and
therefore, the consumer is entitled to approach to the
Government of Maharashtra by raising appropriate grievance.
iv. The consumer’s activity falls in the category of
“non-manufacturing activity” as the consumer’s Sewage
Treatment Plant does not manufacture anything. By relying upon
an order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity
Regulatory Commission, in Case No.116/2008, in which the
term “Industry” has been explained, he submitted that
categorization of establishment as “Industry” can be done, only
if, the activities carried on entail manufacturing. He submitted
that, since, the CGRF failed to understand the concept of
“Industry” in its proper perspective with reference to the
Electricity Act, 2003, which is a special enactment, the
impugned order concluding the consumers’ establishments as a
manufacturing unit is erroneous and unsustainable.
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
6
6. In support of his submissions, Advocate Mr. Purohit,
learned counsel for the petitioner-MSEDCL placed reliance on the order
passed by the MERC in M/s. Gajkesari Steels and Alloys Private Limited
Vs. MSEDCL (supra) and submitted that an identical controversy
relating to the recovery of the amount of subsidy was decided by the
Commission and the consumer was directed to approach to the
Government of Maharashtra for raising his grievance. He submitted that
the controversy in the instant petition being identical, the complaint
before the CGRF deserved to be dismissed. He also placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant
Engineer (D1), Ajmet Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another Vs.
Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla reported in (2020) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 650 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of K.C. Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others reported in
(2023) 14 Supreme Court Cases 431 and submitted that the Electricity
Distribution Company is entitled to recover its dues which cannot be
questioned by the consumer after consumption of electricity.
7. Per contra, Advocate Mr. S.V. Bhutada, learned counsel for
the respondent vehemently opposed the petition and supported the
impugned order passed by the CGRF. As regards the contentions about
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
7
the lack of jurisdiction of the CGRF, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the grievance raised by the consumer, was not regarding
non-grant of subsidy and the only grievance was about retrospective
recovery of the subsidy amount and thus, the dispute was rightly
entertained by the CGRF. He thus, submitted that although there is no
dispute about the bill amount, the consumer had raised a dispute
regarding the amount of “Debit Bill Adjustment” as claimed through the
said bill by wrongly categorizing the Consumer as “non-manufacturing
unit” and hence, the objection to the maintainability of the complaint is
unsustainable.
8. He further submitted that the consumer unit – CETP was
categorized as an Industrial Consumer since, the date of connection i.e.
22.12.2016, as reflected in the electricity bill for the month of July,
2023 (which was subjected to challenge in the complaint) and the
MSEDCL on its own extended the benefit of VM Subsidy to the
consumer as per the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2016. There is
no material on record either in the nature of Government Resolution or
otherwise to indicate that the consumer became dis-entitled to VM
Subsidy with retrospective effect, enabling the MSEDCL to recover the
amount of subsidy, which was already granted. He thus, submitted that
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
8
even the subsequent Government Resolution dated 23.06.2022 does not
provide for any such retrospective recovery and thus, “Debit Bill
Adjustment” of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/-, is without any basis. He also
submitted that the activities carried on by the consumer-CETP is a
manufacturing activity, as rightly recorded by the CGRF. He refuted the
contentions of the MSEDCL, which were advanced by relying on the
Order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the MERC by submitting that the
issue as to whether CETP as a manufacturing activity is not at all
settled and no conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the said order
to authorize the MSEDCL for making retrospective recovery.
9. By relying on the MERC Tariff order dated 03.11.2016, he
submitted that the consumer (respondent herein) is categorized as
“HT-IA (Industrial) and since the consumer is a manufacturing and
processing unit, the contentions of the MSEDCL to term it as
non-industrial unit are unsustainable.
10. In support of these submissions, Advocate Mr. Bhutada,
learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.
Ltd., and Others reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 66 and submitted
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
9
that as a Gas Bottling Plant is held to be carrying out a manufacturing
activity and in view of this, the consumers activity of the Sewage
Treatment Plant is also required to be categorized as a manufacturing
activity. By placing reliance on the another judgment of the Coordinate
Bench in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.
Ltd. (MSEDCL) through its Superintendent Engineer Vs. Viraj Profile
Ltd., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2557, he submitted that the
grievance raised by the consumer about the “Debit Bill Adjustment” by
way of retrospective recovery was required to be entertained by the
CGRF, as has been rightly done.
11. In view of these submissions, rival contentions fall for my
consideration.
12. The controversy involved in the instant petition is about the
grievance of the Consumer (respondent herein) regarding the “Debit Bill
Adjustment” as claimed by the MSEDCL in the electricity bill supplied
for the month of July, 2023. The “Debit Bill Adjustment” is sought to be
justified by the MSEDCL on the ground that the VM Subsidy which was
granted by the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2016 is
discontinued by the Government by subsequent Government Resolution
dated 23.06.2022 thereby, dis-entitling the consumer from any subsidy.
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
10
The petitioner’s contention is that consumer could not be categorized as
a manufacturing unit and since, the Government Resolution dated
23.06.2022 has reclassified the beneficiaries on the basis of
manufacturing and non-manufacturing units, the consumer is not
entitled for any subsidy. On this premise, the MSEDCL has raised the bill
for “Debit Bill Adjustment” of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/-. Thus, the issue is
about the entitlement of MSEDCL to effect the recovery of the amount
of subsidy, which was already paid in accordance with the Government
Resolution dated 29.06.2016.
13. Pertinent to note that there is no stipulation in the
Government Resolution dated 23.06.2022 thereby, authorizing the
MSEDCL to order the retrospective recovery of the amount of subsidy. It
has to be noted that the VM Subsidy was granted by the MSEDCL in
accordance with the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2016 by
deciding the entitlement of the consumer, which is carrying on the
activity of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant. As such, after the
alleged reclassification of the activities, the MSEDCL appears to have
inferred that the consumer is not entitled for the subsidy and based on
this inference has ordered retrospective recovery of the amount. It has
to be noted that the grievance, if any, with respect to the non-grant of
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
11
subsidy based on Government Resolution dated 23.06.2022 could be a
subject matter of separate proceedings, either before the CGRF or before
any other Authority, however, the issue in the instant petition is about
retrospective recovery of awarded subsidy.
14. As regards the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner raising objection to the maintainability of the complaint
before the CGRF, it has to be noted that although there was no dispute
regarding the bill against the consumption, the grievance was raised
with respect to the “Debit Bill Adjustment” as raised by the same bill
and as such, the objection does not appear to be sustainable. Further,
the objection about the jurisdiction of the CGRF to decide the matters
pertaining to grant or non-grant of the subsidy is also not sustainable, as
the consumer has not raised the dispute about the non-grant of subsidy
by the Government. As such, in view of the grievance raised by the
consumer before the Forum/CGRF being related to the retrospective
recovery of the subsidy by way of “Debit Bill Adjustment”, the
contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in this regard are not
acceptable.
15. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2022 has reclassified the
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
12
beneficiaries depending upon the activity being a manufacturing or
non-manufacturing, the same is not clearly reflected, qua the issue of
the recovery of the subsidy, which is already awarded. The
reclassification, if at all inferred, can be with respect to grant of subsidy
in future. But there is nothing to indicate entitlement to order
retrospective recovery of subsidy already awarded. As such, the
contentions of the petitioner in this regard also cannot be accepted.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the respondent had advanced elaborate submissions on the
issue as to whether the activity of the consumer – M/s. SMS Limited,
which is a Common Effluent Treatment Plant, could be categorized as a
manufacturing or non-manufacturing activity. In view of the controversy
raised in the complaint before the Forum/CGRF, the same was of little
significance. Since, the MSEDCL has already categorized the consumer
as an “Industrial Consumer” as reflected even in the MSEDCL Tariff
Order dated 03.11.2016, as such, the activity carried on by the
consumer cannot be abruptly be labeled as a “Non-Manufacturing” or
“Non-Processing”, consequently, making it liable for payment of subsidy
already awarded. The Forum/CGRF has recorded its observations with
respect to the activity carried on by the consumer as a manufacturing
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
13
process, by considering the actual working of the unit, which does not
appear to be without any basis. Although, the conclusions with regard
to the nature of activities of the consumer could be drawn on the basis
of the various other material, for the purpose of deciding the
controversy, the factors considered by the Forum/CGRF does not appear
to be unreasonable. As such, the inference drawn by the forum/CGRF in
this regard is not perverse, warranting any interference.
17. As regards, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the
order passed by the Commission in the matter of M/s. Gajkesari Steels
& Alloys Private Limited (supra), it has to be noted that the controversy
in that case has arisen because of the earlier mistake in billing
committed by the MSEDCL and in that background, it was held that the
MSEDCL was entitled for recovery of the dues, which were paid by
mistake. Further, the issue raised before the Commission was regarding
non-grant of subsidy by the Government of Maharashtra and as such,
the consumer was directed to approach to the Government of
Maharashtra by submitting appropriate grievance. The controversy
involved in the instant matter is not a grievance against the non-grant of
subsidy and hence, in my opinion the contentions of the petitioner
based on the said order are not acceptable.
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
14
18. Although, it is argued by petitioner that the V.M. Subsidy is
recovered as it was wrongly given to non-eligible consumer, because of
bonafide mistake, it has to be noted that the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the respondent was not eligible for the subsidy during
the period from 2017 to 2021. Pertinently, petitioner has itself found the
respondent eligible for subsidy. Further, non-eligibility, if any, cannot be
given effect retrospectively to the extent of authorizing petitioners to
make recovery of subsidy.
19. Similarly, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
matter of Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Vs. M/s. Meera
Enterprise, Through its Proprietor (supra) is also misplaced, since the
issue was regarding non-grant of subsidy by the Government, as the
consumer therein had sought for exemption from levy of the electricity
duty, which was considered to be in the domain of Government of
Maharashtra. The controversy raised in the instant petition is not similar
to the controversy decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and as
such, the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no assistance.
20. The position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmet Vidyut Vitran
Pvf

WP-2056-2025 J..odt
Judgment
15
Nigam Limited and Another (supra) and K.C. Ninan (supra), is not
disputed, however, the controversy involved in the instant matter
related to the retrospective recovery of the amount of subsidy by way of
“Debit Bill Adjustment” is different and the said judgments are not of
any assistance to decide this controversy.
21. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the
Forum/CGRF it appears that due consideration is given to the relevant
factual and legal aspects and the Forum/CGRF has recorded pertinent
reasons while deciding the complaint. The issues raised by the parties
have been dealt with and the reasons recorded by the Forum does not
appear to be perverse or palpable erroneous warranting indulgence by
this Court.
22. In view of above mentioned factual and legal aspects, I am
of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not need any
interference. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J ) .


𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁
Pvf