Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Nitin Ramling Ghule on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7590
1 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
18 WRIT PETITION NO. 10702 OF 2023
THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY
LTD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VERSUS
NITIN RAMLING GHULE
...
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ankush Nivrutti Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2023, passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.60/2022, whereby the appeal filed by Respondent was partly allowed by directing to the Petitioner to refund the amount as per approved W.C.R. (as per the prevailing procedure) for refund under NON DDF CC&RF Scheme.
3. Mr. Avishkar Shelke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an authority of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, a licensee under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. He submits that the Petitioner is engaged in operation of maintenance of electricity. He submits that Respondent 2 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 herein is a consumer, who filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and same was registered as Case No.924 of 2022 and he filed an appeal before the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur allowed the claim of the Respondent and directed to refund the amount as per approved Work Completion Report (W.C.R.) for refund under NON DDF CC&RF Scheme and further directed to pay the interest from April 2019 to the date of start of the refund, on the amount as per W.C.R. to be refunded to the consumer at the rate equal to the bank rate declared by RBI within a period of three months.
5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent is a proprietor of Tuljai Dal Mill situated at Plot No.B-9, MIDC, Bhoom and he applied for 15 HP Industrial connection in prescribed Form A-1 and submitted a Notarized undertaking (III), (Non-DDF Scheme), (Infrastructure to be carried out by prospective consumer) on Rs.100 Stamp paper bearing No.RA 726111 dated 13.11.2017 duly signed by the Respondent. He further submits that by the said undertaking, the Respondent agreed to bear all the expenses incurred towards the electricity infrastructure work as per the DDF Scheme of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Respondent 3 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 further agreed that he will not claim either the material used or any monetary claim or refund thereof. He submits that once there is an undertaking and the said undertaking is binding on the Respondent.
6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that as per the sanctioned letter, the Respondent appointed the contractor for the work and same was completed. Initially for load of 15 HP, the consumer demanded infrastructure of 0.24 km HT Line and after few months, the Respondent applied for extension and same was increased to 80 horse power. Therefore, by that he contended that the Respondent demanded 100 KVA DTC considering the future load requirement. He further submits that during 12 months, no any other connection was given on 100 KVA Distribution Transformer Commission (DTC), therefore, it was cleared that the transformer was directed and commission exclusively for giving supply to the premises of the Respondent and no other consumer was permitted to use the connection from the said transformer. After the release of electricity connection in favour of Respondent, the Respondent executed two consent letters dated 18.08.2020 and 12.03.2022 and same was issued in favour of Vikas Kalyan Borade and Shri. Gurudas Rambhau Gilbile and while submitting that by these two letters, it was clear that the intention of the Respondent regarding to bearing of infrastructure cost. Though the sanctioned was made under Non-DDF CC & RF Scheme. He 4 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 submits that the Respondent with delayed application approach to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by filing grievance application on 02.06.2022 and prayed a refund of Rs.4,70,616/- with interest towards refund of infrastructure cost.
7. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently submits that the grievance raised by the Respondent before the CGRF, Aurangabad was not maintainable by stating that the complaint was not an aggrieved party as per the regulation 2.1 (c) of MARC (CGRF & EO) Regulations 2020. He further submits the Respondent applied for industrial connection and agreed to bear all the expenditure and to that effect executed an undertaking and by that undertaking Respondent is not entitled to claim a material cost or any mandatory claim or refund thereof. Therefore, he submits that even the claim which was raised by the Respondent was time barred as per Regulation 7.8 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2020, the limitation provided to submit any claim of two years under the Regulations 2020. He further submits that as there is no fault on the part of the Petitioner, the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur ought not to have allowed the interest on the refund amount. Therefore, on this ground, he submits that the order passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur is liable to be set aside by allowing the petition.
5 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 In support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.1588 of 2019 dated 08.01.2020 and in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Deesan Agro Tech Limited, reported in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 763.
8. Per contra, learned Advocate for the Respondent supports the order passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and submits that infact the sanctioned order and the stamp which was executed that itself is clear, the stamp was executed by Option No.3 under the Non-DDF Scheme and, therefore, he submits support to the order passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur.
9. Having heard learned Advocate for the respective parties at length. I have gone through the undertaking which is at page No.19, after going through the same, it clearly reveals that it is an undertaking (Non-DDF scheme) (infrastructure to be carried out by the prospective consumer). As well as at page No.20, even it was specifically mentioned that option No.3 i.e. non-DDF scheme. Furthermore, I have gone through the sanctioned letter which is at page No.21 dated 29.12.2017, a sanctioned letter issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. O&M Division Osmanabad, 6 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 clearly reveals that by observing that the expenditure should be made from the funds available under the appropriate scheme for Non-DDF, CC & RF scheme for the year 2017-18. Therefore, the sanctioned order issued by the Executing Engineer dated 29.12.2017 is very clear and specific that the sanctioned was under the non-DDF Scheme. When the Petitioner filed a claim for refund before the CGRF, the CGRF without considering the sanctioned letter rejected the claim of the Petitioner, but the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur recorded the findings by analyzing in a detailed paragraph Nos.5, 5.1 to 5.12 at page No.90 reads as under:-
"5. Analysis and Ruling:-
Heard both the parties and perused the documents on record, and the following observations are made:-
5.1 The Appellant has applied for 15 HP Industrial Connection and submitted A1 form, along with notarized consent for carrying out the work.
5.2 The Respondent has accorded technical approval on 28.12.2017 under the scheme head Non DDF CC&RF for the year 17-18. The estimated amount was Rs. 4,70,616/-
excluding 1.3% supervision charges and GST.
5.3 After carrying out and completing the infrastructure work through the Licensed Electrical Contractor, the Respondent released the connection to the Appellant on 07.01.2019. 5.4 The main grievance of the Appellant in this case is, non-
receipt of refund as committed under the NON DDF scheme, through energy bills, and failure on part of the Respondent to implement refund.
5.5 As per the Respondent, one of the reasons for not starting refund is the consent submitted by the Appellant for NON 7 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 DDF CCRF, where in the Appellant had mentioned that he will not seek refund. During hearing on being asked whether the consent form is provided by Respondent to the Appellant or whether this form is standardized by Respondent's head office, on this the Respondent could not give any satisfactory answer and only said that it is submitted by the Appellant on its own. The NON DDF circular dated 20.05.2008 submitted by the Appellant does not mention about any consent form for not claiming the refund under NON DDF. As this consent mentioning about 'not claiming any refund under NON DDF CCRF scheme' is not part of the circular and not issued by any responsible authority of the Respondent, and is submitted by the Appellant on its own (as claimed by the Respondent) hence does not carry any weight.
Moreover, it is observed that, the estimate has been sanctioned after the submission of the consent. The Respondent has accorded sanction to estimate under the head NDDF CCRF scheme on 29.12.2017.
5.6 The other reason provided by the Respondent for not starting refund is NOC issued by the Appellant to other consumers to be connected on said infrastructure. It is very clear that when sanction is accorded under NON DDF CCRF, there is no reason for the Respondent to seek NOC for giving connection to others on said infrastructure. 5.7 During hearing, the Respondent said that it was a mistake to sanction the estimate under NON DDF after receipt of consent for not claiming any refund. On being asked, whether revised sanction under DDF was issued, the Respondent clarified that no correction in the sanction letter dated 28.12.2017 was done during these five years and there is no document available on record to show that it is a DDF connection.
5.8 During hearing the Appellant mentioned that four reminders were given to the Respondent (the copies of the letters are also emailed to the Respondent after hearing) for getting refund, during the period 29.11.2018 to 12.07.2019 which were duly acknowledged by the Respondent. No reply is seen on these reminders from the Respondent side. The Appellant also submitted the copy of the letter dated 20.10.2018 showing that WCR was submitted by the Dy. Executive Engineer, Bhoom to the Executive Engineer, Osmanabad.
8 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 5.9 The Respondent cited the order passed by Commission in case no 5/2020 and Judgement in writ petition no 1588/2019 and 6382/2020 of the Hon High Court Nagpur bench and Bombay bench respectively. These are the cases related to DDF and hence no bearing on the present case. 5.10 Further The Appellant submitted that the Respondent was pointing out the letter dated 14.03.2018 wherein the refunds of NDDF CCRF were kept on hold for some time. However, the Respondent was well aware that the same instructions were become nonexistent vide letter no. 9245 dated 23.04.2018.
5.11 As per the Respondent the Appellant has proposed the work as HT line 0.24 Km., LT line 0.6 Km. and Transformer 100 KVA one no., and Respondent's officers approved the same without checking that 25 KVA transformer was sufficient to cater to the load of the Appellant of 15 HP. From this, it is clear that the Respondent has not done any due diligence in the case and acted in a manner unbecoming of laid down procedures, rules and regulations. This shows the total negligent and indifferent attitude from the Respondent side. 5.12 The Appellant has not got the refund, due to the mistake on the part of the Respondent."
10. Therefore, considering the above observations, it was directed to refund the amount as per the approved W.C.R. After going through the above findings and the undertaking and the sanctioned letter, I find that the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur has rightly considered the matter. As far as the delay point is concerned, at the relevant time, because of pandemic and in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the time was extended and this fact is also considered by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur.
11. Considering the above, I find that the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur has rightly considered the matter, therefore, I do 9 of 9 18-WP.10702.2023 not find any perversity in the order passed dated 19.01.2023, so as to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef