Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G. MEHARE, J.
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Ramchandra S/o Madhavrao Naik – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6725 of 2020
Decided On : 06-02-2024
Electricity - Unauthorized Use - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 126, Section 56 - The court discussed the unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicability of Section 56. It highlighted the key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that the assessment of the bill for unauthorized use was correctly done under Section 126 of the Act. The court also clarified that Section 56 of the Act does not apply to the case at hand.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 1, a consumer of the petitioner, allowed respondent No. 2 to use the electricity supply for commercial purposes without changing the tariff. The petitioner assessed a provisional bill for the changed user, and after objections, a final assessment order was passed. Respondent No. 1 impugned the order, and the appellate authority calculated unauthorized use from January 2010. The petitioner appealed the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment of the bill for unauthorized use was correctly done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It also clarified that Section 56 of the Act does not apply to the case at hand. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and restored the final assessment order.
Issues: The issues included whether a change of load constituted a change of the class of the user, the correctness of the assessment for unauthorized use, and the applicability of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessment of the bill for unauthorized use was correctly done under Section 126 of the Act, and Section 56 did not apply to the case. It emphasized that the load may be enhanced for any class of user of electricity for the purpose for which it was supplied, and the consumer is bound to inform the supplier about any change in the class/tariff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, restored the final assessment order, and directed the adjustment of the amount deposited by the petitioner in the final assessment of the bill for unauthorized usage of electricity. The order was stayed for four weeks to allow for seeking legal remedy.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. MEHARE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a consumer of the petitioner. He took an electricity supply to run his printing press. For his printing press, an Industrial tariff was applied. He closed down the printing press. He gave his premises to respondent No. 2 on leave and licence. He opened the coaching classes on that premises in 2010. On his application, the load was enhanced. The petitioner’s personnel visited the premises on 27.12.2017 and found that respondent No. 2 was using the electric supply for commercial purposes without changing the tariff. Therefore, it was unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Explanation (b)(iv) to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short). The officers drew the spot panchnama. There was no dispute that on the day of the inspection, respondent No. 2 was running a coaching class on the premises with the old electric supply under the leave and licence agreement. The petitioner assessed the provisional bill for the changed user, and notice was served upon the person from respondent No. 2, who had sought time to make the submissions on 28.02.2018. After receipt of the notice, he filed a detailed reply. He contended that he possessed premises under leave and licence agreement with respondent No. 1 (original appellant). He submitted that respondent No. 1 authorized him to use the premises for commercial activities. He has also submitted that he had a registered leave and licence agreement with respondent No. 1. He allowed him to use the electricity supply. Hence, it was not an unauthorized use. He was not privity to the contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The purpose for which electricity was supplied to respondent No. 1 was not disclosed to him by respondent No. 1. Thus, no liability could be fastened upon him. He mentioned that the application was submitted to the office of the petitioner in 2012 for supplying 3-phase electricity with a high load. In the said application, he has fairly mentioned the nature of the use of electricity supply. In pursuance of the application, 3 phase and higher load was granted to him. He prayed to exonerate him from the prosecution.
3. After hearing the person in occupation, the order of final assessment under Section 126 of the Act was passed and addressed to Shri. R.M. Naik, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, calling upon them to deposit Rs. 23,35,321/- within fifteen days, i.e. on or before 28.03.2018. Respondent No. 1 has impugned the order of provisional assessment by Writ Petition No. 2994 of 2018. This Court, on 13.08.2019, has held that as per Section 126(2) of the Act, the order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation, possession, or in charge of the place or premises. Respondent No. 2, being in occupation or in charge of the premises, was served with the provisional assessment. Objections were invited. The objections were considered. Finally, the Court observed that the statutory remedy of appeal is available. Hence, it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to avail the alternate remedy. However, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which respondent No. 1 had deposited was directed to be adjusted in the amount of the assessment. Then, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3/appellate authority cum Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad Region Electrical Inspection Circle, Aurangabad. Respondent No. 1 was heard, and the appellate authority calculated unauthorized use from January 2010. However, the petitioner can, at the most, recover the money from respondents No. 1 and 2 as per Section 56 of the Act for a period of not more than two years. Accordingly, he held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs. 10,67,670/-. Against the sai
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of the bill for unauthorized use was correctly done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 56 of the Act d....
Electricity users must meet defined criteria for consumer status under Section 2(15); unauthorized use triggers assessments under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, which cannot be modified or waive....
Unauthorized use of electricity for a purpose other than authorized and in premises other than those for which the supply was authorized constitutes a violation of Section 126 of the Electricity Act ....
Unauthorized use of electricity includes misuse or malpractices while using electricity, and the assessing officer is legally bound to pass a final assessment order after considering objections.
The provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are self-contained codes, and an appeal under Section 127 is only available when there is a finding of unauthorized use of electric....
Provisional assessment under Electricity Act Section 126 invalid without inspection of consumer premises or records maintained by consumer; licensee’s internal MRI/consumer records insufficient basis....
The assessing officer must establish unauthorized use of electricity before issuing a final assessment order, which can be appealed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
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
