Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Mahindra Life Space Developers Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5487 of 2018
Decided On : 07-08-2018
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 127, 126, 2 - Business of distribution of electricity - Lease small portion of land - By consent of parties petition is heard finally at admission stage - By this petition filed under Article of Constitution of India petitioner has impugned order passed by appellate authority and Chief Electricity Inspector under section of Electricity Act allowing Appeal filed by respondent Some of relevant facts for purpose of deciding this petition - Petitioner is one of successor entities of erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board and is undertaking business of distribution of electricity in its area of supply - petitioner original respondent in Appeal whereas respondent original appellant in appeal - Respondent is real estate developer involved in civil construction activities - Respondent party respondent in appeal filed by respondent before appellate authority – Held, Consumer who is served with such provisional assessment which is based on best of judgment of assessing officer is entitled to seek necessary break up or details from such provisional bill to enable him to raise an objection on issue of payability as court as quantification - If any particulars in bill are missing vague and are not furnished to such person who is entitled to file objection such person would not be able to deal with such provisional assessment made by assessing officer in right perspective - In my view assessing officer has to follow principles of natural justice while passing final assessment order under Section of Electricity Act - In this case respondents had though repeatedly called upon assessing officer to furnish break up and details of various datas given in provisional assessment assessing officer failed to furnish such break up and details - In my view final assessment order passed by assessing officer thus was in violation of principles of natural justice – Court not inclined to accept submission made by counsel for petitioner that there is no provision under Electricity Act or any of Regulations or that petitioner was not under an obligation to furnish any such break up or details as sought by respondent while passing final assessment order - Order accordingly
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
1. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally at the admission stage. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the appellate authority and Chief Electricity Inspector under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 allowing the Appeal No. 183 of 2010 filed by the respondent no. 1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under.
2. The petitioner is one of the successor entities of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board and is undertaking business of distribution of electricity in its area of supply. The petitioner is the original respondent in the Appeal No. 183 of 2010 whereas the respondent no. 1 is the original appellant in the said appeal. The respondent no. 1 is the real estate developer involved in civil construction activities. The respondent no. 2 was a party respondent in the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 before the appellate authority.
3. On or about 1st July, 1997, Pune Municipal Corporation issued commencement certificate in favour of the respondent no. 1 for Phase-1 of the project. On 3rd September, 1998, the predecessor of the petitioner executed a lease deed in favour of the predecessor of the respondent no. 1 whereby the predecessor of the respondent no. 1 agreed to take on lease a small portion of the land for the purpose of electric transformer sub-station. The said sub-station is near the parking area on the ground floor and is a single storeyed structure.
4. On 15th January, 1999 the respondent no. 1 made an application to the petitioner for electric supply (new connection) seeking about 51 separate LT connections to its commercial complex. In the month of July 1999, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission came to be established under the provisions of Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998.
5. On 17th August, 1999, the petitioner issued a letter of sanction in favour of the respondent no. 1 for execution of work and permitting the respondent no. 1 to carry out the work involved in releasing power supply to its commercial complex by paying 15% supervision charges. The said letter provided that the connections would be released only after execution and completion of the work and on payment of service connections charges and deposits by the individuals. The working sheet for assessment of the service line charges also refers to separate LT connections. It is the case of the petitioner that the said sanction letter was issued by the petitioner after processing the application made by the respondent no. 1 as per their desire to have 51 separate connections to its commercial complex. The petitioner had sanctioned separate LT connections as desired by the respondent no. 1.
6. On 18th August, 1999, the respondent no. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner showing its intention to sell the building to multi national companies. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 however at no point of time, informed the petitioner about sell of the premises to any person.
7. On 23rd April, 2000, the respondent no. 1 addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Pune Zone recording the visit of the Chief Engineer to the site and having discussion on various options. In the said letter the respondent no. 1 recorded that the amount paid by the respondent no. 1 for LT connections shall be adjusted towards HT connection charges. The project of the respondent no. 1 at that time was at the stage of construction.
8. On 27th June, 2000, the respondent no. 1 made a fresh application to the petitioner for HT connection. In the covering letter to the Chief Engineer, Zone, the respondent no. 1 alleged that it was applying for HT power supply as advised by the Chief Engineer. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 placed reliance on the said letter in its compilation before the appellate authority for the first time
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
