Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) challenging orders of the Electricity Ombudsman directing the company to provide new electricity connections to the respondents. The background of the case is that respondent No.1 in the first petition, Ramakant Vithobaji Gaikwad, was the owner of Plot No.3 in Bhamti Parsodi, Nagpur. The plot had five electricity meters in the name of M/s Harshal Printings Private Limited and Mr. Harshal (Gaikwad's son). In 2002 and 2011, the connections were discontinued due to non-payment of charges. In 2014, Gaikwad along with developer Rajiv P. Dhoble (respondent No.1 in the second petition) commenced development of a building with 8 flats. Gaikwad executed a power of attorney in favor of Dhoble. The developer applied for 8 new electricity connections. MSEDCL refused to grant the connections on the ground that there were outstanding dues of Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of the same premises from the previous consumer M/s Harshal Printings. The respondents approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and then the Electricity Ombudsman, who directed MSEDCL to provide the connections. MSEDCL challenged these orders in the High Court. The legal issues were whether the company could refuse new connections based on previous dues of a different entity and whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction. The Court held that the previous consumer was a different legal entity and the respondents were not liable for those dues. The refusal was arbitrary and violative of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which mandates supply of electricity to any applicant within one month. The Court also upheld the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The petitions were dismissed and the stay granted earlier was vacated.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - New Connection - Refusal based on previous dues - Section 43, Electricity Act, 2003 - The petitioner company refused to grant new electricity connections to the respondents on the ground that there were outstanding dues in respect of the same premises from a previous consumer (M/s Harshal Printings Private Limited). The Court held that the previous consumer was a different entity and the respondents were not liable for those dues. The refusal was arbitrary and violative of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which mandates supply of electricity to any applicant within one month. (Paras 4-7) B) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Ombudsman - Section 42, Electricity Act, 2003 - The Electricity Ombudsman passed orders directing the petitioner to provide new connections. The Court upheld the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding new connections under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006. (Paras 2, 8) C) Electricity Law - Power of Attorney - Application for Connection - The developer Rajiv P. Dhoble applied for new connections on behalf of the owner Ramakant Gaikwad under a power of attorney. The Court held that the power of attorney holder was competent to apply for new connections and the company could not refuse on that ground. (Paras 5, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Electricity Distribution Company can refuse to provide new electricity connections to a developer/owner on the ground that there were previous dues in respect of the same premises by a different consumer?
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the Ombudsman dated 15.3.2016 are upheld. The ad interim stay granted on 1.3.2017 stands vacated.
Law Points
- Electricity connection cannot be denied for dues of a different entity
- Electricity Ombudsman has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding new connections
- Power of Attorney holder can apply for connection on behalf of owner
- Section 43 of Electricity Act
- 2003 mandates supply of electricity to applicant within one month
