Bombay High Court
M/S. Apm Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 5 March, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-AS:11476-DB
3 wp9208-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9208 OF 2018
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
M/s.APM Terminals India Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18933 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9208 OF 2018
M/s.APM Terminals India Pvt.Ltd. .. Applicant
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited .. Respondent
Mr.Rahul Sinha with Mr.Soham Bhalerao i/b M/s.DSK Legal,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr.Sanjiv Punalekar a/w Ms.Ekta Rajpurohit i/b Ms.Suvarna Avhad
Vast, Advocate for Respondent/Applicant.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: MARCH 5, 2026 Page 1 of 7 MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc P. C.
1. Rule. Respondent waives service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 14 th July 2017 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). This Forum has been established as per the notification issued by MERC under the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations 2006 to redress the grievances of consumers vide powers conferred on the MERC by Section 181 r/w Sections 42(5) and 42(7) of the Electricity Act, 2003. By the impugned Order, the CGRF quashed and set aside the supplementary bill of tariff difference for Rs.68,31,614/- for the period April 2010 to September 2015 on the ground that the Licensee (the Petitioner) had sought to change the category of the consumer (the Respondent) to a commercial category from April 2010 as per the tariff order passed by MERC. The Petitioner itself had categorized the Respondent under the industrial category since the beginning upto November 2015 when it was changed to a commercial category on the detection of the error by the audit party. The CGRF came to the conclusion that there being no fault on the part of the consumer (the Respondent), it could not be saddled with the recovery for the period April 2010 to November 2015.
Page 2 of 7
MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc
3. It is on this short point that the supplementary bill for the tariff difference between the industrial category and the commercial category amounting to Rs.68,31,614/- was quashed and set aside by the CGRF.
4. After perusing the impugned order, we are of the view that the findings given by the CGRF on this aspect cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another vs. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla (2020) 4 SCC 650 : 2020 SCC Online SC 206. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, there was mis-classification of tariff which resulted in a demand. In fact the Supreme Court noted that, during the course of a regular audit being conducted by the internal audit party, it was discovered that in 52 cases, including that of the Respondent before the Supreme Court, bills were raised under the wrong Tariff Code 4400, instead of Tariff Code 9400, under which the prescribed tariff rate was Rs.2.10p per unit. It was only on 18 th March 2014 that the licencee Company issued a show cause notice to various consumers, including the Respondent before the Supreme Court, raising an additional demand for consumption of electricity for the past period from July 2009 to September 2011. It was mentioned in Page 3 of 7 MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc the notice that the amount was payable in view of the internal audit by the Department.
5. It was in these facts that the Supreme Court decided whether under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, the aforesaid amount can be recovered by the licensee and whether the licensee could take recourse to disconnection of the electricity supply after the lapse of two years in case of a mistake. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of the Electricity Act, finally came to the conclusion that Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee Company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2), in case of a mistake or bona fide error. The Supreme Court however, held that it did not empower the licensee company to take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply for recovery of the additional demand. In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court also placed reliance on Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court reads as under:
"9.1. Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. It did not, however, empower the licensee company to take recourse Page 4 of 7 MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand.
9.2. As per Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in case of a mistake, the limitation period begins to run from the date when the mistake is discovered for the first time. In Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P., this Court held that:
(SCC p. 11, para 22) "22. Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that in the case of a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff had discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. In a case where payment has been made under a mistake of law as contrasted with a mistake of fact, generally the mistake becomes known to the party only when a court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law. Though a party could, with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of fact even before a court makes a pronouncement, it is seldom that a person can, even with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the validity of the law."
(emphasis supplied) 9.3. In the present case, the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of the mistake i.e. 18-3-2014. The licensee company may take recourse to any remedy available in law for recovery of the additional demand, but is barred from taking recourse to disconnection of supply of electricity under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
6. This judgment was thereafter followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Page 5 of 7 MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc Limited (2021) 20 SCC 200. The relevant portion of this decision reads as under:
"23. In other words, the negligence on the part of the licensee which led to short billing in the first instance and the rectification of the same after the mistake is detected, is not covered by sub-section (1) of Section 56. Consequently, any claim so made by a licensee after the detection of their mistake, may not fall within the mischief, namely, "no sum due from any consumer under this section", appearing in sub-section (2).
24. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 as discussed above, deals with the disconnection of electric supply if any person "neglects to pay any charge for electricity" . The question of neglect to pay would arise only after a demand is raised by the licensee. If the demand is not raised, there is no occasion for a consumer to neglect to pay any charge for electricity. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 has a non obstante clause with respect to what is contained in any other law, regarding the right to recover including the right to disconnect. Therefore, if the licensee has not raised any bill, there can be no negligence on the part of the consumer to pay the bill and consequently the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) will not start running. So long as limitation has not started running, the bar for recovery and disconnection will not come into effect. Hence the decision in Rahamatullah Khan and Section 56(2) will not go to the rescue of the appellant.
25. Therefore, we are of the view that the National Commission was justified in rejecting the complaint and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the National Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, since the appellant has already paid 50% of the demand amount pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 19-8-2014, we give eight weeks' time to the appellant to make payment of the balance amount. There shall be no order as to costs."Page 6 of 7
MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 ::: 3 wp9208-18.doc
7. In light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, we find that the impugned Order passed by the CGRF cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 14 th July 2017 passed by CGRF is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
9. In light of the disposal of the above Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Interim Application filed by the Respondent herein and the same is disposed of accordingly.
10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 7 of 7 MARCH 5, 2026 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 21:38:41 :::