MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS NODAL OFFICERversusM/S BHARATI TELESONIC LTD

2026:BHC-AUG:42822



                                                     1
                                                                   902-wp-8827-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8827 OF 2023

                        Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
                                        Through Its Nodal Officer
                                                 VERSUS
                                        M/s Bharati Telesonic Ltd
                                                     ...
                     Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. V. D. Khivesara and
                     Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner
                     Mr. R. M. Gaikwad and Mr. R. R. Kazi, Advocate for
                     Respondent (Thr. V.C.)
                                                    …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                            DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated

                     26.04.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal

                     Forum, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (“CGRF” for brevity) in

                     case No.CGRF/A’bad/1109/2023/05, the Maharashtra State

                     Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (“MSEDCL” for brevity)

                     has preferred this petition.

                     2.        The petitioner/MSEDCL is a company registered under

                     the Companies Act, 2013 and is owned by the Government of

                     Maharashtra. The respondent is a business entity involved in

                     the activities of telecommunication sector, particularly in the
                                 2
                                                   902-wp-8827-2023

installation and operation of mobile towers for providing

mobile and internet services to the public.

3.    On 28.02.2009, the respondent applied to the petitioner

for electricity connection for its utilization at its site located at

Hotel Nagarjuna, Airport Road, Nanded. The application in

prescribed format was submitted by the respondent/Bharti

Telesonic Ltd. (“Airtel” for brevity). Clause no.6 of the

prescribed application form required the prospective consumer

to specify whether the electricity connection was sought for

domestic or business purpose. Suffice to note, there were only

two categories specified in the application form. The

respondent/Airtel, in its application sought the electricity

connection for business purpose.

4.    Consequent to the application and after completion of

the formalities, the electricity connection was sanctioned and

provided to the respondent/Airtel. For some period Airtel was

charged at the commercial tariff, whereas for certain period,

the tariff applicable to industrial usage was levied. Suffice to

note, there is difference between the tariffs applicable to

industrial and commercial usage. The controversy between the
                               3
                                                902-wp-8827-2023

parties arose when the petitioner/MSEDCL charged Airtel at

the commercial tariff for the same electricity connection,

although for an earlier period, the tariff applicable to

industrial usage had been levied.

5.     Feeling aggrieved by the levy of the commercial tariff,

Airtel approached the CGRF, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The

forum heard both the parties and allowed the complaint filed

by the respondent/Airtel. The tariff applied at commercial

usage was struck-down. The MSEDCL was directed to adjust

the amount paid excess by Airtel for the usage of the

electricity.

6.     Feeling aggrieved thereby, the MSEDCL has filed

present petition.

7.     During the course of hearing, Mr. V. D. Sapkal, learned

Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Bajaj, learned Advocate for the

petitioner pointed out a judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nirgam

Limited    Vs.   Maharashtra   State   Electricity   Distribution

Company Limited, 2024 DGLS (Bom.) 1432 . He would submit

that the reasons recorded by the CGRF particularly its finding
                               4
                                              902-wp-8827-2023

that the activities of Airtel constitute an industrial activity

cannot be made applicable for the present purpose. He would

submit that the CGRF has referred to the Income Tax Act and

has applied those provisions while deciding the complaint.

Pointing out the judgment delivered by this Court in the BSNL

case supra Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate submits that

this Court has clarified that the provisions under the Income

Tax Act could not be invoked for the purpose of present

controversy.

8.    Then, Mr. Sapkal submits that the CGRF has not at all

considered the photographs produced by the MSEDCL to

demonstrate that the activity conducted by the Airtel at the

subject matter/site was in fact shows that it was a commercial

activity. The wholesome objection of Mr. Sapkal is that the

respondent Airtel was operating a telephone exchange at the

site and hence since it was a revenue generating activity, the

MSEDCL was justified in charging the tariff applied for the

commercial usage.

9.    Mr. R. M. Gaikwad, learned Advocate for respondent/

Airtel advocates the reasoning rendered by the CGRF. He
                                5
                                                  902-wp-8827-2023

would submit that in fact the MSEDCL never conducted

physical inspection of the site. What was done was only on

visit by an Officer of the MSEDCL who purportedly prepared a

report of inspection and recorded that a commercial activity or

commercial usage was in operation at the subject matter site.

He would submit that the application which was given by the

MSEDCL to the consumers while securing a connection

prescribes only two types of usages; (i) Domestic and (ii)

Business. He submits that it ought to have been further

classification as to industrial or commercial usage. He submits

that the MSEDCL cannot take benefit of its own wrong.

10.   It is another contention of learned Advocate for

respondent/Airtel that the petitioner/MSEDL could not

establish that any independent revenue generating activity

was being carrying out by Airtel through the use of the said

unit at the subject matter-site. He would submit that, having

regard   to   the   actual   activity   carried    out   by   the

respondent/Airtel, the unit installed at the site can only be

regarded as a unit or instrument ancillary to the mobile

towers. He submits that admittedly, no mobile tower was

installed at the subject site and that the unit installed therein
                               6
                                              902-wp-8827-2023

is a REG Servers, which merely receives signals from one

tower and transmits them to another tower. He submits that

as such the unit by itself does not carry out any independent

activity and hence it is rightly termed by the CGRF as an

instrument or ancilliary unit of the mobile towers. Operation

of such unit is covered under industrial activity. He further

submits that MSEDCL could not establish that the unit was a

‘Telephone Exchange’. With this, Mr. R. M. Gaikwad, learned

Advocate submits that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

11.   During the course of hearing, it appears that the

judgment rendered by the Division Bench was not brought to

the notice of the CGRF. Secondly, the contention of

respondent/Airtel as regards to the contents in the electricity

connection application are also not discussed by the CGRF.

Thirdly, the issue as to whether the petitioner/MSEDCL was

required to establish that the REG unit was generating

revenue, and if so, whether such activity would constitute a

commercial activity of the respondent/Airtel is required to be

proved before the CGRF. Although the complaint is allowed by

the CGRF, the basic objections of the MSEDCL as regards to

the commercial usage needs to the elaborately discussed by
                                    7
                                                     902-wp-8827-2023

the CGRF. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to relegate

the matter to the CGRF. In view of the issues to be agitated by

the parties as observed supra, I pass following order:

                                ORDER

        a.       Writ Petition stands disposed of.
        b.     The matter is relegated to the CGRF for
        fresh disposal.
        c.    All contentions of both the parties are kept
        open.
        d.     Suffice to note, this Court has not
        commented on merits of either party. The issues
        referred are on the basis of contentions of the
        parties.
        e.    Both the parties candidly agree to appear
        before the CGRF on 05.10.2026. It is agreed that
        no separate notice is needed for that purpose.
        f.    After appearance of both the parties, the
        CGRF is requested to conclude its hearing within
        a period of three months.
        g.     It is requested to the CGRF to issue
        appropriate directions if required to the MSEDCL
        for directing official disconnection at the site and
        for issuing appropriate bill in the light of that
        discontinuation.


                                        ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026