THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MSEDC TD. , KEDGAON DIV. AND ANRversusM/S SHREE SAI SAMARTH DUDH SHITKARAN KENDRA , DAUND

                                                     24-WP-14306-18-F.doc



                                                              Sayali


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO.14306 OF 2018

The Executive Engineer MSEDC Ltd
Kedgaon Division and Others                   … Petitioners
           V/s.
M/s. Shree Sai Samarth Dudh Shitkaran
Kendra                                        … Respondents

Mrs. Anjali Baxi, for Petitioners.


                            CORAM        : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED        : JUNE 22, 2026

P.C.:

1.      By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order
dated 06th February, 2018 passed by the Superintending
Engineer, Pune, Regional Electrical Inspection Circle, Pune in
Appeal No. 03/2017-2018 and have prayed that the said order be
quashed and set aside. The facts which have given rise to the
present proceedings are as follows. It appears that on 27th May,
2010, the petitioners had provided an industrial electricity
connection to the respondent at its Shitkaran Kendra situated at
Betwadi. The electricity supply was sanctioned on the basis that
the respondent would use the same for carrying out milk
processing activities at the said premises.



                                     1
                                                       24-WP-14306-18-F.doc


2.    The record shows that on 07th January, 2017, the Flying
Squad at Satara carried out an inspection of the respondent’s
premises. During the inspection, it was noticed that the electricity
connection was being used only for operating a milk collection
centre and that no milk processing activity was being undertaken
at the site. According to the petitioners, a milk collection centre
falls under the LT-II category and is liable to be charged at the
commercial tariff as prescribed under the orders issued by MERC.
On that basis, a bill dated 11th January, 2018 for an amount of
Rs.3,94,410/- was issued to the respondent towards the
differential charges for the period from June, 2015 to the year
2017. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the respondent
preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act,
2003 before the Appellate Authority on 06th February, 2018. The
petitioners thereafter filed their reply on 20th February, 2018 and
disputed the allegations as well as the contentions raised by the
respondent. After considering the matter, the Appellate Authority
passed its order on 18th April, 2018. It is this order which is the
subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3.    Mrs. Anjali Baxi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, invited attention to the findings recorded by the
Executive Engineer in the order dated 20th February, 2018. She
pointed out that the consumer himself had furnished an email
address on 16th September, 2017 and the contents of the
material produced by him clearly indicated that no milk
processing activity was being carried out at the premises. Learned



                                 2
                                                    24-WP-14306-18-F.doc


counsel further relied upon Commercial Circular No.243 dated
03rd July, 2015. According to her, the said circular provides that
the HT-II category applies to all non-residential, non-industrial
and commercial establishments. She particularly referred to
clause (m) of the circular, which specifically includes milk
collection centres within the HT-II commercial category. On the
strength of these documents, she submitted that once there was
an admission from the consumer himself that no milk processing
work was being conducted at the site, the Appellate Authority
could not have ignored that material and ought to have treated
the electricity supply under the HT-II commercial category. She
therefore contended that the findings recorded by the Appellate
Authority are contrary to the material available on record.

4.   Though the respondent was duly served with notice of the
present proceedings, none appeared on his behalf when the
matter was taken up for hearing. In these circumstances, the
Court proceeds to decide the petition finally on the basis of the
material available on record.

5.   Hence, upon careful perusal of the material placed on
record, this Court finds that the contention raised by the
petitioner deserves acceptance. The documents which were
produced before the authorities and which are placed before this
Court throw light on the nature of the activity carried out at the
premises. The order passed by the Executive Engineer and the
reply submitted before the Appellate Authority on 20th February,




                                3
                                                     24-WP-14306-18-F.doc


2018 show that the authorities had examined the nature of use of
electricity at the relevant time and had taken into consideration
the information supplied by the consumer.

6.    It is important to note that the email dated 16th September,
2017 was sent on behalf of the consumer. Therefore, the contents
of the said communication carry evidentiary value. A reading of
the said email shows that the consumer had stated that the
activities undertaken at the site were collection of milk from
various   sources,   storage   of    such   milk   and     thereafter
transportation of the same to another place. The description
furnished in the email show that any process was being
undertaken whereby the milk was being converted or subjected
to any industrial operation. The activities mentioned are confined
only to receiving the milk, keeping it in storage and sending it
further. Such activities may be necessary for the business of milk
handling, but it cannot be assumed that milk processing activity
is also being carried out.

7.    The distinction between collection and processing is
required to be kept in mind. Processing involves use of machinery
and equipment for carrying out industrial operation upon the
product. Mere receipt and storage of milk do not establish that an
industrial process is taking place. Therefore, when the consumer
has described the activity in a manner which indicates only
collection, storage and transport, the authorities were justified in
examining whether the electricity connection was being utilized




                                 4
                                                     24-WP-14306-18-F.doc


for the purpose for which the industrial tariff category had been
granted.

8.    The respondent had relied upon a video clip to indicate
that machinery was available at the premises. The video may
show that certain machinery had been installed at the location.
However, the mere existence of machinery cannot establish that
processing activity was in fact being undertaken during the
relevant period. Machinery may remain installed and yet remain
unused. What is material is not merely the presence of equipment
but the actual nature of operations being carried out. In the
present matter, apart from showing installation of machinery, no
convincing material has been brought on record to demonstrate
that milk processing activity was being conducted during the
period for which the differential billing was raised. Therefore, the
existence of machinery cannot outweigh the description of
activities furnished by the consumer.

9.    Viewed from any angle, the material available on record
indicates that the predominant activity at the premises was
collection of milk, storage and transportation. The record does
not establish that milk processing operations were being carried
on so as to justify continuation of the industrial category. The
findings recorded by the Executive Engineer are therefore
supported by the material available on record and cannot be said
to be without basis.




                                 5
                                                     24-WP-14306-18-F.doc


10.   In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that
the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner deserves
acceptance. The material on record indicates that the premises
were being used as a milk collection centre. Therefore, the
petitioner was justified in contending that the respondent would
fall within the HT-II commercial tariff category and not within the
industrial category.

11.     As a result, the conclusion reached by the Appellate
Authority cannot be sustained. Since the finding regarding
industrial use is not supported by the material available on
record, the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the order treating the supply
category as industrial is liable to be set aside.

12.   For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘b’.

13.   The petition accordingly stands disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.




                                              (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                   6