25 WP-10556-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10556 OF 2023 Viraj Profiles Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...Respondent —————— Ms. Prerna Gandhi for Petitioner. Ms. Deepa Chawan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Reshma Nathani, Ms. Radha Bhandari, Mr. Dheer Sampat for Respondent-MSEDCL. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 19th November, 2025. P. C. : 1. The Petition impugns the order dated 15th March, 2019 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman rejecting the representation of Petitioner against the order of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum [for short “CGRF”] dated 26th September, 2018 dismissing the grievance for the reason that there is no prayer made for SOP compensation. The impugned order makes a reference to Regulation 32 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 and relies upon the decision of APTEL in the matter of MSECL vs. MERC1 where it was held that CGRF will have no 1 Appeal No. 36 of 2011. Sairaj 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AS:9878 25 WP-10556-2023.doc jurisdiction to entertain or decide the dispute where the statutory mandate to provide open access has been violated by Distribution Licensee. By the impugned order what has been held is that the revision in the bill has been challenged being an open access consumer and jurisdiction would lie before the Commission and not before the CGRF. 2. It is not necessary to go into the facts in view of the decision of this Court dated 28th November, 2023 passed in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Viraj Profile Ltd.2. In that case, this Court considered Regulation No. 32 of Open Access Regulations and interpreted the same to mean that only in the case where dispute resolution mechanism is not provided under Electricity Act, 2003 or any other regulations thereunder, such dispute shall be referred to MERC. It held that the MERC is a specialized body meant for adjudication of disputes pertaining to regulating tariff, intra-state transmission between licensees and generating companies under its jurisdiction and that the dispute in that case was a dispute which was in the nature of individual consumer grievance. This Court held that in that case as billing dispute was raised by Respondent as a grievance which was an individual dispute, the jurisdiction would lie with CGREF. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent would emphasize on 2 Writ Petition No. 3708 of 2019, decided on 28th November, 2023. Sairaj 2 of 4 25 WP-10556-2023.doc the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd.3 to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a slightly different view as regards the jurisdiction of the Commission. 4. Considering that the impugned order of Electricity Ombudsman is based on Regulation 32 of Open Access Regulations, the interpretation of the said regulation by this Court assumes significance. The Electricity Ombudsman has not rendered any findings on the merits of the matter and has rejected the representation on the point of jurisdiction. 5. Considering that subsequent decision of this Court has interpreted Regulation 32, it would be appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Electricity Ombudsman to be considered afresh on the aspect of jurisdiction by considering the decision of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. M/s. Viraj Profile Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra). It is also open for the Electricity Ombudsman, in event, it is found that issue of jurisdiction is required to be answered in favor of Petitioner herein, then to examine the merits of the matter and adjudicate the same. 3 (2007) 8 SCC 381. Sairaj 3 of 4 25 WP-10556-2023.doc 6. In light of above, the impugned order dated 15th March, 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The representation is restored to file of the Electricity Ombudsman to be considered afresh. As directed above, the parties to produce necessary decisions to assist the Electricity Ombudsman to arrive at a finding on the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter, on the merits of the matter if the issue of jurisdiction is answered in favor of Petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and has remanded the matter for consideration afresh as it was observed that subsequent decision was relevant for deciding the issue. 8. All rights and contentions including the aspect of limitation, delay and laches are expressly kept open. 9. Liberty to Parties to file Written Submissions before the Electricity Ombudsman. 10. The parties to appear before the Electricity Ombudsman on 2nd December, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. where the copy of this order to be produced before the Electricity Ombudsman. 11. Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Sairaj 4 of 4