THE MAH. STATE ELECTRICTY DISTRIBUTION CO. AND ORS.versusM/S. DELIGHT BAKERY

                                                     25-WP-14345-18-F.doc



                                                              Sayali


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               WRIT PETITION NO. 14345 OF 2018

The Mah. State Electricity Distribution
Co. and Others                                … Petitioners
           V/s.
M/s. Delight Bakery                           … Respondents

Mrs. Anjali R. Shiledar- Baxi, for Petitioners.



                            CORAM       : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED       : JUNE 22, 2026

P.C.:

1.      The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28th
December, 2017 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Pune,
Regional Electrical Inspection Circle, Pune in Appeal No.
05/2016-17 and have prayed that the said order be quashed and
set aside. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that an
electricity connection meant for industrial use was sanctioned in
the name of the respondent for the premises of M/s. Delight
Bakery situated at Survey No. 70/1/1A, Santosh Nagar, Katraj,
Pune, bearing Consumer No. 160240763408. On 07th October,
2016, the Flying Squad from Satara inspected the premises and
allegedly found that the electricity supply was being used for a



                                  1
                                                     25-WP-14345-18-F.doc


purpose different from the purpose for which it had been
sanctioned. Thereafter, on 05th November, 2016, the petitioner
issued a provisional assessment bill of Rs.3,85,200/- for 2,24,400
units. Subsequently, a final bill was issued on 03rd February,
2017. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner filed its reply in the
appeal proceedings. By order dated 28th December, 2017, the
Appellate Authority decided the appeal. Being dissatisfied with
the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way
of the present petition.

2.    Mrs. Anjali Baxi, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners, invited attention to the order of the Executive
Engineer dated 05th November, 2016. She submitted that the
provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act
was issued on the basis of the inspection carried out by the Flying
Squad on 07th October, 2016. According to her, the inspection
revealed that the electricity connection, which had been
sanctioned for industrial use, was being utilised for commercial
activities. She contended that such use falls within the expression
"unauthorised use of electricity" as contemplated under Section
126 of the Electricity Act and, therefore, the provisional
assessment bill was rightly issued. Learned counsel further
submitted that the inspection report of the Flying Squad clearly
records that although the respondent had obtained the electricity
connection under the industrial category, he was found engaged
in the activity of selling bakery products from the premises.



                                  2
                                                           25-WP-14345-18-F.doc


According to her, such activity amounted to unauthorised use of
electricity within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. She further pointed out that the impugned order itself
records that both manufacturing of bakery products and their
sale were being carried on by using the same electricity
connection.

3.    Though duly served, the respondent has chosen not to
appear before this Court. In these circumstances, the petition is
being decided on its own merits in the absence of the respondent.

4.    Upon careful going through the record placed before this
Court, it appears that the controversy is limited to the use of
electricity supply during the period from October 2015 to
September 2016. The main question is whether the respondent
was using the electricity connection for the same purpose for
which it was sanctioned or whether it was being used for a
different   purpose    attracting       the   provisions     relating       to
unauthorised use.

5.    From the material available on record, it is seen that the
electricity connection in question was released under the
industrial category.    The record indicates that during the
inspection, it was noticed that along with manufacturing activity,
sale of bakery products was also being carried out from the
premises. What is important is that the respondent appears to
have accepted before the authorities that sale activity was being
undertaken by using the same electricity connection.



                                    3
                                                     25-WP-14345-18-F.doc




6.     The tariff structure under the electricity laws different
categories are created depending upon the nature of use.
Industrial tariff is granted for industrial activities, whereas
commercial tariff applies where electricity is utilised for
commercial purposes. Therefore, when a consumer obtains
supply under one category and uses it for another category, the
licensee is empowered to take action in accordance with law.

7.   In the present case, Circular No.133 provides for the
manner in which such cases are to be dealt with. Clause (1)(c) of
the said Circular authorises the licensee to recover charges at
twice the tariff applicable to the relevant category whenever
unauthorised use is detected. The object behind such provision
appears to be to discourage consumers from obtaining supply
under one tariff category and thereafter using it for a different
purpose. If such conduct is permitted without consequences, the
tariff mechanism would become ineffective and the distinction
between various categories would lose its meaning.

8.   The Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal, appears
to have proceeded on the footing that since manufacturing
activity was also being carried on at the premises, the assessment
ought to have been made by treating the use as industrial.
However, such an approach cannot be sustained. The issue was
not whether some industrial activity was being carried on. The
real issue was whether the electricity connection sanctioned for



                                4
                                                     25-WP-14345-18-F.doc


industrial use was also being utilised for commercial activity.
Once the material on record showed use of electricity for sale
activity, the case fell within the category of unauthorised use.

9.    Merely because manufacturing and sale activities were
being conducted from the same premises would not permit the
consumer to claim the benefit of industrial tariff for the entire
consumption. If the electricity supplied under the industrial
category was also being used for commercial operations, the
licensee was justified in invoking the provisions governing
unauthorised use. The record does not disclose any material
which would justify treating the consumption as purely
industrial.

10.   For these reasons, this Court finds that the Appellate
Authority committed an error in directing correction of the
assessment by treating the respondent's use as industrial use.
Such a direction runs contrary to the provisions contained in
Circular No.133. The assessment made by the petitioner,
therefore, could not have been interfered with in the manner
done by the Appellate Authority.

11.   In view of the above discussion and having regard to the
facts emerging from the record, this Court is satisfied that the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be
sustained in law. Consequently, the challenge raised by the
petitioners deserves to succeed.




                                   5
                                                  25-WP-14345-18-F.doc


12.   The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer
clause ‘b’.

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


                                          (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                6