MUDHOL LAND HOLDINGS CO PVT LTD.,versusTHE CHIEF ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL) APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ANR.

                                                                 3-wp3141-2010 with caw889-2013.doc


                      AGK
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.3141 OF 2010

ATUL                  Maharashtra State Electricity
GANESH
KULKARNI              Distribution Company Ltd.                    … Petitioner
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
                                  V/s.
Date: 2026.02.12
18:13:40 +0530        The Chief Engineer (Electrical),
                      Appellate Authority & Anr.                   … Respondents

                                                    WITH
                                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO.889 OF 2013
                                                     IN
                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3141 OF 2010

                      Mudhol Land Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd.           … Applicant
                            In the matter between
                      Maharashtra State Electricity
                      Distribution Company Ltd.                    … Petitioner
                                  V/s.
                      The Chief Engineer (Electrical),
                      Appellate Authority & Anr.                   … Respondents

                      Mr. Rahul Sinha with Mr. Soham Bhalerao and Mr.
                      Harshit Tyagi i/by DSK Legal for the petitioner.
                      Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin
                      Mulye for the respondents.


                                                   CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                   DATED     : FEBRUARY 12, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The present writ petition questions the legality of the order
                      passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the
                      Electricity Act, 2003. By the said order, the appeal preferred by




                                                         1
                                          3-wp3141-2010 with caw889-2013.doc


respondent No. 2 has been allowed and the finding of
unauthorized use recorded by the assessing officer has been set
aside. The Appellate Authority has held that the use of electricity
in the premises of respondent No. 2 was authorized. The petitioner
seeks to challenge that conclusion.

2.   The material facts are not in dispute. The assessing officer,
by order dated 24 April 2009, concluded that respondent No. 2
was misusing electricity supply. The supply was sanctioned for IT
purposes. According to the assessing officer, the premises were
being used for commercial purposes. On that basis, it was held that
there was a violation of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The order refers to various factors under clauses (a) to (f).
However, a close reading of those clauses shows that none of them
deals with the core requirement under the applicable IT Policy of
2003. The policy permits a limited percentage of commercial use.
The order does not record any finding that respondent No. 2
crossed the permissible 80:20 ratio.

3.   The assessing officer also noted the explanation given by
respondent No. 2. It was pointed out that the premises had been
given on leave and license to entities such as Axis Bank, HDFC,
Reliance Insurance and SMS Concost Engineering Private Limited.
According to respondent No. 2, these entities were carrying on
back office operations involving computerized data processing and
related services. Such activities, it was contended, fell within the
scope of Information Technology Enabled Services under the ITES
Policy, 2003 issued by the Directorate of Industries, Government of
Maharashtra. The assessing officer recorded these submissions but



                                 2
                                           3-wp3141-2010 with caw889-2013.doc


did not analyze whether those activities were in fact covered under
the policy or whether they crossed the permissible limit.

4.    The foundation of action under Section 126 is unauthorized
use of electricity. In the present case, the alleged unauthorized use
is based on the premise that commercial activity exceeded 20
percent of the total use. That is the threshold fixed under the
applicable policy. However, the order of the assessing officer does
not contain any calculation, measurement, inspection report or
other material to show that commercial use went beyond 20
percent. There is no quantified finding. There is no reference to
documents or data supporting such a conclusion. A finding of
unauthorized use cannot rest on assumption. It must be supported
by material on record. In the absence of any such material, the
conclusion remains unsubstantiated.

5.    The Appellate Authority examined the record and noted this
deficiency. It recorded a clear finding that approximately 95
percent of the electricity consumption was for industrial or IT
enabled activities. Such use fell within the permissible limit under
the ITES Policy. Once it is accepted that commercial use did not
exceed 20 percent, the essential condition for invoking Section 126
is not satisfied. The Appellate Authority, therefore, set aside the
assessment. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority is based on
the absence of evidence showing excess commercial use. The
finding is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

6.    In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court does
not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court. Interference is




                                  3
                                           3-wp3141-2010 with caw889-2013.doc


warranted only if the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity
or jurisdictional error. The impugned order does not suffer from
any such defect. The Appellate Authority has considered the
material and has applied the correct test under the policy and
Section 126. The petitioner has not demonstrated any error of law
or fact that would justify interference.

7.    For these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

8.    The civil application does not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4