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 waived.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The facts relevant for adjudication of issues involved according to petitioner are as under

2. The Petitioner is the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. It is a Government owned distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. It carries the statutory duty to distribute electricity throughout the State of Maharashtra. It must regulate, monitor and enforce authorised use of electricity in its network. It must protect public revenue. It must ensure compliance with MERC regulations. It must act whenever it detects unauthorised use within the meaning of Sections 126 and 135 of the Act.

3. Respondent No. 1 in each Petition is the registered consumer. Each connection bears a separate consumer number. The sanctioned supply stands in the name of Respondent No. 1 alone. The contractual relationship under the Act, the Supply Code of 2005 and the Conditions of Supply exists only with Respondent No. 1.

4. Respondent No. 2 is a lessee. He has never applied for change of name. He has never entered into a supply agreement with the Petitioner. He has never disclosed his occupation or activity as required by Regulations 10 and 11 of the Supply Code. He is not a consumer within Section 2(15) of the Act. In spite of this, he has assumed the role of Respondent No. 1 and contested the statutory assessment under Section 126. The statute does not permit such participation.

5. Respondent No. 3 is the Appellate Authority under Section 127. It passed the impugned orders. It is therefore a formal and necessary party.

6. The dispute arises from detection of commercial use in premises sanctioned only for industrial purpose. The Flying Squad of the Petitioner inspected the premises and found commercial laboratory and testing activity. This use falls within unauthorised use under Section 126(6)(b). The assessment was issued to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 filed the appeal and secured the impugned order though he had no right to do so.

7. The premises of Respondent No. 1 were used for commercial activity without disclosure and without permission. The Petitioner challenges the order of Respondent No. 3 which is patently unsustainable. The order is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

8. Respondent No. 1 is the registered consumer for Gala No. 31 situated in Raja Industrial Estate, Mulund West. The category of supply was strictly LT V Industrial. At all times the records of MSEDCL showed Respondent No. 1 as the only consumer responsible for compliance with the Act and the Supply Code.

9. On 5 January 2010 the Flying Squad carried out inspection. It found that no industrial activity was carried out. Instead, Respondent No. 2 was operating a commercial laboratory and testing unit. This was admitted on site. The inspection report clearly established commercial use. Such use falls in Section 126(6)(b)(i) because electricity was used for a purpose other than that authorised.

10. The Petitioner issued the provisional assessment on 8 January 2010. Respondent No. 1 was given hearing on 22 March 2010. He was asked to produce documents showing industrial activity or any sancti