Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Ambika Printes And Publications ... on 30 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:21183
Writ Petition No.12120/2018
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12120 OF 2018
The Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Ambika Printers and Publications ....Respondent
.......
Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. R.S. Sarvadnya, Advocate for respondent
.......
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2/8/2018, passed by learned Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF for short) in Consumer Complaint No.9/2018, whereby the learned CGRF allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to refund the amount which was charged excessively from February 2011.
Writ Petition No.12120/2018
:: 2 ::
3. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is a Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company, a licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner is engaged In operation and maintenance of electricity. The respondent is a consumer and a complainant who filed complaint before the (CGRF). He submitted that, on 1/3/2013, the respondent submitted an application, making grievance about the discrepancy in Unit rate of energy bill by contending that the electricity connection is obtained by normal feeder, however, the Company has charged on the basis of express feeder, which is more than the unit from normal feeder and the respondent requested for carrying out correction in the payment of difference of amount. Pursuant to the letter, the Superintending Engineer submitted proposal for change in tariff and vide letter dated 2/9/2015, considered the request of the consumer for tariff charge w.e.f. September 2015. The Superintending Engineer, vide its letter dated 14/12/2017, communicated to the respondent about refund of the difference of tariff as claimed from the consumer from the date of application dated 1/3/2013 and an amount of Rs.5,84,543/- was adjusted. The respondent/ consumer approached to the Internal Grievances Cell praying for refund of the Writ Petition No.12120/2018 :: 3 ::
amount for the period from February 2011 to July 2015, but the same was not considered and, therefore, the respondent filed application before the CGRF. The learned CGRF, Latur directed the petitioner to pay the difference amount from February 2011. Therefore, the petitioner, rectified the mistake and refunded the amount of difference from 1/3/2013 i.e. on the date when the respondent consumer made a grievance. He therefore, submits that the CGRF ought not to have entertained the complaint. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Regulation 6.2, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2006 and contended that the procedure for redressal of grievances is prescribed. Relying upon the law laid down by this Court that, as the grievance filed by the petitioner was not within prescribed period of limitation as per Regulation 6.6, and considering that the forum shall not admit any grievance unless it is filed within two years on which the cause of action arises.
Therefore, he submits that, the cause of action arose to the consumer when the consumer filed the application on 1/3/2013 and, therefore, the amount was refunded from the date of application and not from the date i.e. when the communication was granted w.e.f. February2011. In support of his contentions, he Writ Petition No.12120/2018 :: 4 ::
relied upon the law laid down in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & anr. Vs. Jawahar Shetkari Soot Girni Limited [2019 (1) Bom.C.R. 910], in which it is held in paragraph No.22 as under :
"22. The term "cause of action" would mean a legal injury caused to the consumer. In other words, it would mean a grievance of a consumer as the term "cause of action" has not been defined in the Regulations, though the term "Grievance"has been defined under Regulation 2(2.1)(c) which means any fault or imperfection or shortcoming in inadequacy, etc."
4. Therefore, by relying upon the above referred judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the said clause, the forum ought not to have entertained the grievance filed by the respondent and considering the above, he submits that the order passed by the CGRF is liable to be quashed and set aside. He therefore prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Sarvadnya, learned counsel for respondent submits that, in fact it is not the fault on the part of the respondent consumer but it is a mistake on their part and instead of normal feeder, they charged the bill by contending that the petitioner was given the connection of express feeder, and it was Writ Petition No.12120/2018 :: 5 ::
brought to the notice by filing application in the year 2013 and from 2013 till 2017 they have taken four years time to decide the grievance and thereafter the order of refund was passed that too from 1/3/2013. He submits that, in fact there is no any fault on the part of the respondent/ consumer and, therefore, since the beginning if there was fault on the part of the petitioner Company, and once they refunded the amount up to 2013, they have to refund from February 2011 itself as admittedly the petitioner has not provided the electricity connection from the express feeder and, therefore, once it was found that it was their own mistake and subsequently they can rectify after application filed by the respondent. Therefore, he submits that the CGRF has rightly allowed the complaint. He therefore, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and considering the record, it needs to be considered whether there is any fault on the part of the respondent/ consumer. Even it is the case of the petitioner Company that there is no any fault on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner has applied for normal feeder and even the electricity supply was also for normal feeder, but while Writ Petition No.12120/2018 :: 6 ::
giving the bills, the same were given for express feeder. In view of this fact and when the respondent/ consumer has brought to the notice of the petitioner's officials on 1/3/2013 and they took four years time to rectify the mistake and refunded the amount up till filing of the application. There is no logic behind this. Once they rectify the mistake and there is no fault on the consumer, then the petitioner has to refund the amount from the date when the mistake occurred and that too from February 2011. Therefore, I find that the learned CGRF has rightly passed the order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CGRF. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. Therefore, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) fmp/-