Bombay High Court
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTDversusTHE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM PUNE ZONE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the impugned order and held that the bill of Rs 6,00,650 is payable by HPCL.
Summary
The petition challenged an order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum that set aside a bill of Rs 6,00,650 raised against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for arrears arising from an erroneous classification of its electricity connection as ‘industrial’ instead of the ‘commercial’ category for which it was granted in 2013. HPCL argued that the mis‑classification was not its fault and that the bill should be recoverable despite the two‑year limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court examined the provisions of Section 56 and relied on Supreme Court judgments in Prem Cottex and Rahamatullah, which held that the limitation bars disconnection of supply but does not preclude recovery of dues by other means. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Forum’s order, upheld the bill and directed HPCL to pay the amount within four weeks, with no interest as the error was not attributable to the respondent. The petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum could set aside a bill for arrears arising from a mis‑classification of consumer category under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Whether the two‑year limitation under Section 56(2) bars recovery of the amount claimed by the licensee.
- Whether interest is payable on the arrears where the error was not caused by the consumer.
Legislation cited
- Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 56(2)
Subjects
- Electricity Act 2003
- Section 56
- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
- misclassification of consumer category
- bill recovery
- interest
- disconnection of supply
Judgment
33-WP-18321-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
ASHOK
JADHAV
JADHAV
Date:
2026.03.10
WRIT PETITION NO. 18321 OF 2024
11:01:27
+0530
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Pune …Respondents
Zone and Anr.
Adv. Trishala Sailish i/b KP Law Associates LLP, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav i/b Amisha Lolusare, Adv. Rushikesh
Kekane, for Respondent No.2.
Adv. P. V. Nelsan Rajan, A.G.P. for the State.
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : MARCH 4, 2026
ORDER :
1. This Petition impugns an order passed by Respondent No.1,
the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, formed under the Electricity
Act, 2003, by which, a bill dated June 20, 2022 raised on Respondent
No. 2, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was set aside. The
Impugned Order finds that the Petitioner has indeed been underpaid
and has directed recovery of the loss from the relevant officials of the
Petitioner.
Page 1 of 4
March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
33-WP-18321-2024.doc
2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out that HPCL
was granted a connection in 2013 under the “commercial” category
since the electricity connection relates to a petrol pump engaged in the
retail of petroleum products and has nothing to do with “industrial”
activity for which, electricity is charged at a lower rate.
3. It was however discovered in 2021 that the bills were being
erroneously raised under the industrial category. This led to a bill for
arrears in the sum of Rs.6,00,650/- being raised. HPCL complained
against this, on the premise that it was not HPCL’s mistake that bills
were being raised erroneously under a wrong classification. This led to
the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum passing the Impugned
Order disallowing the bill, with a dissenting judgement indicating that
the bill may be raised but only for the preceding two years in reliance on
Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. Having heard the parties and having examined the record, it
is evident that the connection that HPCL applied for was in the
commercial category, and it was granted the connection too in that
category. The bills have evidently been erroneously raised in the
industrial category. The entire quantum of the discount enjoyed by
HPCL over an eight-year period amounts to a princely sum of
Rs.6,00,650, and it is common ground that no interest is being charged.
Page 2 of 4
March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
33-WP-18321-2024.doc
5. In these circumstances, having examined the Impugned
Order in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, it is
clear that the error that was sought to be corrected, ought not to have
been interfered with. In taking this view, I draw from the views of the
Supreme Court expressed in Prem Cottex1, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows-
“13. Despite holding that electricity charges would become first
due only after the bill is issued to the consumer (para 6.9 of the SCC
Report) and despite holding that Section 56(2) does not preclude the
licensee from raising an additional or supplementary demand after
the expiry of the period limitation prescribed therein in the case of a
mistake or bonafide error (Para 9.1of the SCC Report), this Court
came to the conclusion that what is barred under Section 56(2) is
only the disconnection of supply of electricity. In other words, it was
held by this Court in the penultimate paragraph that the licensee
may take recourse to any remedy available in law for the recovery
of the additional demand, but it barred from taking recourse to
disconnection of supply under Section 56(2).”
6. The aforesaid observation also draws from the view
expressed by the Supreme Court in Rahamatullah2, wherein the view
taken is that under Section 56(2), it is only coercive recovery that is
1 M/s. Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 7235 of 2009.
2 Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs.
Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla, (2020) 3 SCC 650.
Page 3 of 4
March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
33-WP-18321-2024.doc
prohibited for dues from a period prior to two years, and not recovery by
other means without the coercion of disconnection of supply.
7. In my opinion, it would only be appropriate to quash and set
aside the Impugned Order, thereby upholding the bill of Rs.6,00,650,
which simply seeks to correct the admitted error in classification of the
category of consumer. No interest is also being charged since it is no
fault of the Respondent that the error on the part of the Petitioner led to
under-recovery.
8. In these circumstances, and in the peculiar facts of the case,
this Petition is allowed and the bill is held as payable. HPCL shall pay
the same within a period of four weeks from the upload of this order.
9. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall
be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 4 of 4
March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
Checking your session…