Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two writ petitions arising from the same order of the Electricity Ombudsman dated 17.10.2018. The first petition was filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging the Ombudsman's order, and the second petition was filed by the consumer, M/s. Mahamaya Agro Industries, also challenging the same order but seeking its implementation. The consumer had moved the Ombudsman complaining of a billing dispute, alleging that the company had disconnected the electricity supply without proper notice and on the basis of an inflated bill. The Ombudsman, after hearing both parties, directed the company to restore the electricity supply to the consumer without insisting on payment of the disputed amount, holding that the dispute was a billing dispute and not a case of theft. The company argued that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the dispute involved theft of electricity, which is outside the Ombudsman's purview. The consumer argued that the Ombudsman had correctly exercised jurisdiction and that the company's disconnection was illegal. The court analyzed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006. It held that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding billing disputes and can direct restoration of supply pending resolution of the dispute. The court noted that the company had not proved theft through proper assessment under Section 126 of the Act. The court dismissed the company's petition and allowed the consumer's petition, directing the company to restore the electricity supply within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Ombudsman - Billing Dispute - The Electricity Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding billing disputes under the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006. The Ombudsman can direct restoration of supply pending resolution of the dispute, as the dispute is not a case of theft or unauthorized use. (Paras 5-8) B) Electricity Law - Restoration of Supply - Section 43 Electricity Act, 2003 - The right to receive electricity supply is a fundamental right under Section 43. Disconnection for non-payment of disputed bills is not permissible when the consumer has raised a bona fide dispute. The Ombudsman's order directing reconnection without precondition of payment of dues was upheld. (Paras 5-8) C) Electricity Law - Theft - Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 - The allegation of theft must be proved through proper assessment and proceedings under Section 126. Mere suspicion or irregularity in billing does not constitute theft. The Ombudsman correctly held that the dispute was a billing dispute and not a case of theft. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Electricity Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding a billing dispute and direct restoration of electricity supply without insisting on payment of the disputed amount.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the company's petition (WP 1588/2019) and allowed the consumer's petition (WP 4826/2019), directing the company to restore the electricity supply to the consumer within two weeks.
Law Points
- Electricity Ombudsman jurisdiction
- billing dispute
- restoration of supply
- Electricity Act 2003
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ombudsman) Regulations 2006
- Section 43
- Section 56
- Section 126
- Section 135
- Section 142
- Section 146
