Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), challenged the final order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Amravati, in CGRF Case No.56/2024. The respondent, SMS Limited, a consumer under HT Industrial Category since 22.12.2016, operated a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) at Textile Park, MIDC, Amravati. MSEDCL had granted subsidy to the consumer under Government Resolution dated 29.06.2016 from 2017 to 2021. In July 2023, MSEDCL issued an electricity bill dated 03.08.2023 showing a Debit Bill Adjustment of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/- for retrospective recovery of VM Subsidy. The consumer filed a grievance under Regulation 7 of MERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2020. The CGRF allowed the complaint, directing MSEDCL to set aside the Debit Bill Adjustment amount along with interest and Delayed Payment Charges. MSEDCL challenged this order in the High Court. The court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner argued that the CGRF exceeded its jurisdiction and that the recovery was justified. The respondent contended that the recovery was retrospective without prior notice and contrary to regulations. The High Court examined the CGRF order and found no perversity or illegality. It held that the CGRF had jurisdiction to adjudicate the billing dispute and that the retrospective recovery without notice was unjust. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CGRF order.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Subsidy Recovery - Retrospective Recovery - MERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2020 - The dispute pertained to MSEDCL's retrospective recovery of VM Subsidy of Rs.3.49 Crore from a consumer without prior notice. The CGRF set aside the Debit Bill Adjustment holding that there was no provision for retrospective recovery. The High Court upheld the CGRF order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) was justified in setting aside the Debit Bill Adjustment of Rs.3,49,10,622.70/- raised by MSEDCL for retrospective recovery of VM Subsidy.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CGRF order dated 15.01.2025. The court found no perversity or illegality in the CGRF order and held that the retrospective recovery without notice was unjust.
Law Points
- Retrospective recovery of subsidy without prior notice is unjust
- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate billing disputes
- MERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations
- 2020 govern grievance redressal
