MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED THR. ASSESSMENT OFFICER/versusSURESH MAHADEV LANKE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AS:4377

                                                                       902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2762 OF 2024

               1. Maharashtra       State     Electricity ]
                  Distribution Company Limited            ]
                  Through                   Assessment ]
                  Officer/Additional Executive Engineer, ]
                  Flying Squad, Nashik.                   ]
               2. Dy. Executive Engineer, MSEDCL               ]
                  Igatpuri Subdivision, Dist Nashik            ] ...Petitioners

                             Versus

               1. Vivek Pandurang Chawan                   ]
                  Gat No. 192/1, Venkatesh Nagar,          ]
                  Pimpri, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik ]
               2. Appellate Authority/Electric Inspector, ]
                  Department of Industries, Energy and ]
                  Labour, Nashik                          ] …Respondents


                                                  AND
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4658 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4683 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8228 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12220 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12221 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12222 OF 2023
                                                  AND
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4656 OF 2023
                                               ——————
                   Mr. Vikrant Khare, Mr. Ganesh Pandit ii/b M/s. Kshitija Wadatkar and
                   Associates for Petitioners.


                   Sairaj                             1 of 6
                                                 902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


Mr. Rohit D. Gorade, Mr. Sachin Padaye for Respondent No. 1 in all
Petitioners.
                           ——————

                            CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
                            DATE    : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
Oral Judgment :
1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.       By this group of Petitions, the challenge is to the impugned

order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which arose out of the final

assessment by the Petitioner under Section 126 of the Electricity Act,

2003 [for short, “the Electricity Act”]. The Petitions raise identical

issues. Common submissions were advanced and hence, the Petitions

are being disposed of by this final judgment.

3.       With consent, Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2024 was taken as lead

Petition and the facts of the said petition are referred to.

4.       In all these Petitions, the Respondent No. 1-Assessee is the

owner of the bungalow/rowhouse and it was the case of the Petitioner

that the Respondent No. 1 has changed the user of electricity

connection from residential purpose to commercial purpose. On 28 th

February, 2020, the flying squad of Petitioners visited and inspected

the vicinity of the Grand Garden Resort situated at District – Nashik and

during the course of inspection, it was found that row houses were

provided with single phase electricity connection and there was




Sairaj                             2 of 6
                                             902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


unauthorized use of electricity for commercial purposes. Accordingly,

provisional assessment bill was issued and though letters were issued,

the Respondent No. 1 did not attend the hearings and hence, the final

assessment bill came to be issued which applied commercial tariffs

from the date of connection. The said order was challenged by way of

Appeal before Respondent No. 2 and by the impugned order, the

Respondent No. 2 has restricted levying of commercial tariff from the

date of the Rent Agreement i.e. 20 th August, 2019. Hence, the present

Petition.

5.       Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken this

Court through the impugned order and would submit that the entire

basis for restricting the period of levy of commercial tariff was on

account of the alleged rent agreement of 20 th August, 2019. He

submits that the said agreement is unstamped, unregistered

agreement printed on letterhead of Developer and cannot be

considered as an authentic rent agreement. He would further submit

that the photographs are produced on record to show that the

bungalows/rowhouses were given for commercial purpose to the

Developer. He submits that the date of website of Developer is of 2015

and the source code was produced before the authority. He submits

that as the website has been published in the year 2015, it is evident

that the commercial use was from the year 2015. He would further


Sairaj                           3 of 6
                                                 902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


submit that under the provisions of Section 126(5) of the Electricity

Act, 2003, in event, the period       during which unauthorized use of

electricity cannot be ascertained, such period is required to be limited

to period of 12 months from the date of immediately preceding the

date of inspection.

6.       Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1

would support the impugned order and would submit that the

authority has rightly taken into consideration the rent agreement

produced on record. He submits that it is not within the remit of

authority to consider whether rent agreement is valid and legal and the

same is required to be accepted. He submits that in any event, if the

provisions of Section 126 (5) are considered, the period for

unauthorized use of electricity cannot date back to the date of

connection and will be required to be restricted to period of 12 months

immediately preceding the date of inspection which in this case was on

28th February, 2020 and hence, the commercial levy can only be from

28th January, 2019 and not prior thereto.

7.       I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8.       There is no dispute that by virtue of MERC order, in Case No. 195

of 2017, the commercial tariff is required to be levied in respect of use

as hotels/guest house which amounts to use for commercial

consumption. It is not disputed that the premises were put to


Sairaj                             4 of 6
                                                      902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


commercial use as guest house/hotel and the only issue which arises

for consideration in the present case is the period during which the

unauthorized use of electricity is required to be charged as per

commercial tariff. The inspection by the flying squad of the Petitioner

was on 28th February, 2020. Though learned counsel appearing for

Petitioner would seek to rely upon the date of publication of website

of the Developer, the date of publication of website cannot lead to a

conclusive     finding   as   regards    date    of    use   of   premises    as

guesthouse/hotel. The said date refers only to date of publication of

website. Similarly, the photographs placed on record do not reflect any

address or any date to come to conclusion that from the date of

connection of electricity, the premises were used for commercial

purposes which leads us to provision of Section 126(5) of the Electricity

Act, 2003, which reads as under :

            “126. Assessment. -
            (1) …..
            (2) …..
            (3) …...
            (4) …..
            (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that
            unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the
            assessment shall be made for the entire period during
            which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken
            place and if, however, the period during which such
            unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be
            ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of
            twelve months immediately preceding the date of
            inspection.”

9.       The rent agreement which has been produced on record of 20 th


Sairaj                               5 of 6
                                                  902 to 909 WP-4656-2023.doc


August, 2019 is not sufficient to infer that commercial use had

commenced from 20th August, 2019. It would therefore, be appropriate

to apply the provisions of Section 126(5) which has not been

considered by the impugned order. By the impugned order, the

authority without considering the submissions as regards the rent

agreement being unregistered and unstamped has accepted the date

of 20th August, 2019 as the date of commercial use of property which is

unsustainable. In my view, the provisions of Section 126(5) squarely

applies to the facts of the present case. The material on record is not

sufficient to ascertain the period during which the unauthorized use of

electricity has taken place and hence, period is required to be limited

to twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.

10.      In light of same, the Petitioner is entitled to levy the commercial

rate for period from 28th January, 2019 and raise the modified bills

accordingly. The assessment bill to be raised after taking into

consideration the 50 percent amount which has been deposited with

the Petitioner.

11.      Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

12.      In view of above, nothing survives for consideration in pending

applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of.



                                        [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]


Sairaj                              6 of 6