Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.235 OF 2016 PETITIONER 1) Panjabrao Champatrao Mankar, Aged Adult, Occ: Business, at and Post : Padampur, Tahsil and District: Chandrapur. ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through its Executive Engineer, O & M Division, Chandrapur. 2) Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur, Plot NO.12, Shrikrupa, Vijay Nagar, Chaoni, Nagpur-440 013. 3) Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, MSEDCL, Through Chairman, Nagpur (Rural), Zone, Nagpur, Plot NO.12, Shrikrupa, Vijay Nagar, Chaoni, Nagpur-440 013. 4) Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, MSEDCL O& M Circle, Chandrapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.R. Deshpande h/f. Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 11/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:12501 Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 2 2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the learned Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, MSEDCL Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur, as well as the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), MSEDCL, O&M Circle, Chandrapur. The petitioner by setting aside all the orders, seeks release of a sum of Rs.2,52,637/- towards a refund of infrastructure set-up by the petitioner, along with interest. 3. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is an industrial consumer of the respondent-MSEDCL. The petitioner runs a Rice Mill, which was started by him in the year 2004. For running the said Rice Mill, he was urgently in need of an electricity connection and therefore, he applied to the respondent-MSEDCL for getting the same. 4. It is the submission of the petitioner that for getting the electricity connection, he required some infrastructure and the same was done at his instance. According to the petitioner, after sanction of the electricity connection by order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the Superintending Engineer, O&M Circle, Chandrapur under the outright Contribution Scheme (ORC), the expenditure was incurred at the instance of petitioner. The date of supply of the electricity connection is Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 3 08.01.2008. It is also an admitted fact that since 08.01.2008, the petitioner is running Rice Mill with a consumer No.451420305098. 5. After running the business for around 04 years, the peti- tioner has moved his first application before the learned Executive En- gineer, O&M Circle, Chandrapur, on 05.08.2011 and asked for refund of infrastructure which was incurred by him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Executive Engineer, Chandrapur, did not take cognizance of his letter dated 05.08.2011. The petitioner has thereafter, approached before the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, MSEDCL, O&M Circle Chandrapur, by filing a complaint. The said complaint was registered as IGRC Case No.03/2013. The Committee Members of the Internal Grievance Re- dressal Cell, MSEDCL, passed an order dated 01.11.2013 directing the refund of the amount of infrastructure to present petitioner. 7. The respondents immediately seek review of order dated 01.11.2013, as same was time barred complaint before the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell. Respondents pointed out that as per the regu- lations framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commissioner (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation, 2006 (for short “MERC”), the complainant did not permit to Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 4 raise a grievance after a period of two years and therefore, the order passed by the Committee, needs reconsideration. 8. After considering the regulations which were pointed out by the respondents, the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, MSEDCL, O&M Circle Chandrapur, has reviewed its order dated 01.11.2013 by recording the findings that the consumer/petitioner had failed to file his grievance within period of two years, as required under the Regulation 6.6 of the MERC Regulations. The order passed by the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, MSEDCL, O&M Circle Chandrapur, dated 20.11.2014, clearly demonstrates the consideration of MERC Regulations and findings recorded therein. As such, by considering the legal position which was not brought to its notice, has reviewed the order dated 01.11.2013. 9. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, MSEDCL, Nagpur Zone, Nagpur, by preferring Complaint No.153/2014. The said Forum, again by relying upon the Regulation 6.6 of the MERC Regulations, held that any consumer who is having a grievance have to refer the same within a period of two years and that after a period of two years, no such grievance can be entertained. Hence, on the ground of limitation, the order passed by the IGRC is confirmed. Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 5 10. The present petitioner, thereafter, approached before the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur, by preferring Representation No.48/2015, but, in the said proceedings, again by relying the same provisions i.e. Regulation 6.6 of MERC Regulations, the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. In this background, the petitioner approached before this Court by way of present petition to seek the above said reliefs. 11. In the present case, the clause 6.6 of the MERC Regulations, is required to be looked into, which reads as under: “Regulation 6.6 of the MERC (CGRF and EO) Regulations, 2006 reads as under, 6.6. The Forum shall not admit any Grievance unless it is filed within two (2) years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.” 12. The said provision is very specific that the Forum cannot admit any grievance unless it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, considering the submissions of the petitioner, even the cause of action is considered from 08.01.2008 i.e. date on which the electric connection was given to the petitioner, even then, his complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. Admittedly, he has first time raised his grievance on 05.08.2011 i.e. expiry of two years. Therefore, all the Authorities be- Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 6 low have rightly appreciated the controversy involved in the matter and accordingly, dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner who approached before this Court has only made a submission that once the learned Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, has passed an initial Order dated 01.11.2013, in his favour, the date of cause of action requires to be considered from the said date. However, it is equally true that the said order was reviewed by the said Committee and the same was then, quashed and set aside. As such, the said order is now not in existence. The Authorities below therefore, considering the date on which cause of action arose, applied the Clause 6.6 of the MERC Regulations, and rightly held that the petitioner’s claim is barred by limitation. 14. It is also pertinent to note that there is no provision under the MERC Regulations, permitting the condonation of delay. Therefore, as there is no provision for the condonation of delay, the Authorities below have rightly considered the cause of action and the date of filing of the complaint and on that basis decided the entire issue involved in the matter. 15. In addition to above it would be further pertinent to note that this Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 7 Company Limited (MSEDCL) Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine BOM 128, has recorded its finding from paragraph Nos.40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 19 which are relevant in the matter, read as under: “40. As such, in this case while considering section 45 and the Regulations with reference to the limitation period of 2 years, I can gather assistance from the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para- graph Nos.17 and 18 as under :- "17. Thus the principle that emerges is that if the legislature in a special statute prescribes a certain period of limitation for filing a particular application thereunder and provides in clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown, may be extended, in the maximum, only upto a specified time-limit and no further, than the tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction to treat within limitation, an application filed before it beyond such maximum time-limit specified in the statute, by excluding the time spent in prosecuting in good faith and due diligence any prior proceeding on the analogy of section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. 18. We have said enough and we may say it again that where the legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme and language of a statute, it is the duty of the court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy, and without en- grafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such expressed intent of the lawgiver; more so if the statute is a taxing statute. We will close the discussion by recalling what Lord Hailsham (at p.11 in Pearlberg V. Varty Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 8 (1972) 2 All ER 6) has said recently, in regard to importation of the principles of natural justice into a statute which is a clear and complete Code, by itself : "It is true of course that the courts will lean heavily against any construction of a statute which would be manifestly fair. But they have no power to amend or supplement the language of a statute merely because in one view of the matter a subject feels himself entitled to a larger decree of say in the making of a decision than a statute accords him. Still less is it the functioning of the courts to form first a judgment on the fairness of an Act of Parliament and then to amend or supplement it with new provisions so as to make it conform to that judgment.” 42. I have concluded on the basis of the specific facts of these cases that once the FAC Bill is raised by the Company and the said amount has to be deposited by the consumer to avoid discon- nection of the electricity supply, the consumer cannot pretend that he was not aware of the cause of action. As such and in or- der to ensure that section 42(5) read with Regulations 6.2, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 coexist harmoniously, I am of the view that the con- sumer has to approach the Cell with promptitude and within the period of 2 years so as to ensure a quick decision on his repres- entation. After two months of the pendency of such representa- tion, the consumer should promptly approach the Forum before the expiry of two years from the date of the cause of action. 43. If I accept the contention of the Consumer that the Cell can be approached anytime beyond 2 years or 5/10 years, it means that Regulation 6.4 will render Regulation 6.6 and Section 45(5) ineffective. By holding that the litigation journey must reach Stage 3 (Forum) within 2 years, would render a harmoni- Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 9 ous interpretation. This would avoid a conclusion that Regulation 6.4 is inconsistent with Regulation 6.6 and both these provisions can therefore coexist harmoniously. 44. Having come to the above conclusions, I find in the first pe- tition that the FAC Bills for December 2013, February and May 2014, are subject matter of representation of the consumer filed before the Cell on 8-8-2016. In the second petition, the FAC Billing from June to November 2012 subject matter of the rep- resentation dated 27-8-2016. In the third petition, the FAC Bills from January to March 2010 are subject matter of the represent- ation to the Cell, dated 26-06-2016. In the last matter, the rep- resentation before the Cell for the second electricity connection is dated 8-8-2016 with reference to the FAC Bills of December 2013, February and May 2014. 45. As such, all these representations to the Cell were beyond the period of two years. The impugned orders, therefore, are unsustainable as the Forum could not have entertained the said grievances under Regulation 6.6 and 6.7 after two years from the date of the consumer's grievance. 19] It is well settled that the law would not assist a sleeping lit- igant. The conduct of the litigant also has to be considered to assess as to whether a litigant has approached the Court with clean hands and whether the factual background indicates laches or mala fides that could be attributed to his conduct.” 16. In view of above, factually as well as legally, the petitioner failed to point out that the application filed by him was within the period of limitation. Hence, the Authorities below who have decided the Pvf Judgment WP-235-2016 J..odt 10 complaint filed by the petitioner is in consonance with the provisions of law. As such, there is no need of any interference of this Court in the present matter. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf