25-WP-14345-18-F.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14345 OF 2018 The Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. and Others … Petitioners V/s. M/s. Delight Bakery … Respondents Mrs. Anjali R. Shiledar- Baxi, for Petitioners. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 22, 2026 P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28th December, 2017 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Pune, Regional Electrical Inspection Circle, Pune in Appeal No. 05/2016-17 and have prayed that the said order be quashed and set aside. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that an electricity connection meant for industrial use was sanctioned in the name of the respondent for the premises of M/s. Delight Bakery situated at Survey No. 70/1/1A, Santosh Nagar, Katraj, Pune, bearing Consumer No. 160240763408. On 07th October, 2016, the Flying Squad from Satara inspected the premises and allegedly found that the electricity supply was being used for a 1 25-WP-14345-18-F.doc purpose different from the purpose for which it had been sanctioned. Thereafter, on 05th November, 2016, the petitioner issued a provisional assessment bill of Rs.3,85,200/- for 2,24,400 units. Subsequently, a final bill was issued on 03rd February, 2017. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner filed its reply in the appeal proceedings. By order dated 28th December, 2017, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition. 2. Mrs. Anjali Baxi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, invited attention to the order of the Executive Engineer dated 05th November, 2016. She submitted that the provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was issued on the basis of the inspection carried out by the Flying Squad on 07th October, 2016. According to her, the inspection revealed that the electricity connection, which had been sanctioned for industrial use, was being utilised for commercial activities. She contended that such use falls within the expression "unauthorised use of electricity" as contemplated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and, therefore, the provisional assessment bill was rightly issued. Learned counsel further submitted that the inspection report of the Flying Squad clearly records that although the respondent had obtained the electricity connection under the industrial category, he was found engaged in the activity of selling bakery products from the premises. 2 25-WP-14345-18-F.doc According to her, such activity amounted to unauthorised use of electricity within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. She further pointed out that the impugned order itself records that both manufacturing of bakery products and their sale were being carried on by using the same electricity connection. 3. Though duly served, the respondent has chosen not to appear before this Court. In these circumstances, the petition is being decided on its own merits in the absence of the respondent. 4. Upon careful going through the record placed before this Court, it appears that the controversy is limited to the use of electricity supply during the period from October 2015 to September 2016. The main question is whether the respondent was using the electricity connection for the same purpose for which it was sanctioned or whether it was being used for a different purpose attracting the provisions relating to unauthorised use. 5. From the material available on record, it is seen that the electricity connection in question was released under the industrial category. The record indicates that during the inspection, it was noticed that along with manufacturing activity, sale of bakery products was also being carried out from the premises. What is important is that the respondent appears to have accepted before the authorities that sale activity was being undertaken by using the same electricity connection. 3 25-WP-14345-18-F.doc 6. The tariff structure under the electricity laws different categories are created depending upon the nature of use. Industrial tariff is granted for industrial activities, whereas commercial tariff applies where electricity is utilised for commercial purposes. Therefore, when a consumer obtains supply under one category and uses it for another category, the licensee is empowered to take action in accordance with law. 7. In the present case, Circular No.133 provides for the manner in which such cases are to be dealt with. Clause (1)(c) of the said Circular authorises the licensee to recover charges at twice the tariff applicable to the relevant category whenever unauthorised use is detected. The object behind such provision appears to be to discourage consumers from obtaining supply under one tariff category and thereafter using it for a different purpose. If such conduct is permitted without consequences, the tariff mechanism would become ineffective and the distinction between various categories would lose its meaning. 8. The Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal, appears to have proceeded on the footing that since manufacturing activity was also being carried on at the premises, the assessment ought to have been made by treating the use as industrial. However, such an approach cannot be sustained. The issue was not whether some industrial activity was being carried on. The real issue was whether the electricity connection sanctioned for 4 25-WP-14345-18-F.doc industrial use was also being utilised for commercial activity. Once the material on record showed use of electricity for sale activity, the case fell within the category of unauthorised use. 9. Merely because manufacturing and sale activities were being conducted from the same premises would not permit the consumer to claim the benefit of industrial tariff for the entire consumption. If the electricity supplied under the industrial category was also being used for commercial operations, the licensee was justified in invoking the provisions governing unauthorised use. The record does not disclose any material which would justify treating the consumption as purely industrial. 10. For these reasons, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority committed an error in directing correction of the assessment by treating the respondent's use as industrial use. Such a direction runs contrary to the provisions contained in Circular No.133. The assessment made by the petitioner, therefore, could not have been interfered with in the manner done by the Appellate Authority. 11. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the facts emerging from the record, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the challenge raised by the petitioners deserves to succeed. 5 25-WP-14345-18-F.doc 12. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘b’. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 6