1 902-wp-12553-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12553 OF 2023 The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd Through Executive Engineer And Another VERSUS Dnyanesh Dattatraya Patil ... Mr. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. S. Panale, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nashik Circle, Nashik (“CGRF” for brevity) in case no.CGRF/Jalgaon Circle, Jalgaon U & R/09-2022, the respondent there, i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“MSEDCL” for brevity) is before this Court. 2. In nutshell, the case is that the respondent/original complainant was running a hospital for which he sought an electricity connection from the petitioners/MSEDCL. The initial electricity connection was charged at the tariff applicable to the commercial category. The said connection 2026:BHC-AUG:45805 2 902-wp-12553-2023 was granted on 21.11.2007. Subsequently on the request of the respondent, the said electricity connection was disconnected. In the meantime i.e. on 22.05.2019, the respondent applied for another electricity connection, which was accordingly granted. 3. Suffice to note that on 05.09.2012, the petitioners/ MSEDCL issued a Commercial Circular No.175, whereby the electricity tariff was revised. The said circular precisely classified the electricity connection which the respondent subsequently obtained, as ‘LT-X : LT-Public Services’. The said category was distinct from the commercial category and attracted comparatively lower tariff charges than those applicable to commercial usage. 4. In the year 2019, the respondent approached the CGRF seeking difference in the tariff with retrospective effect. The respondent/original complainant claimed that vide the Commercial Circular no.175, his usage of electricity has been classified as Public Services (others), and hence since 2007, the complainant was entitled for tariff differences. The petitioners appeared in the complaint and resisted the claim. The petitioner resisted the complaint on two-fold grounds; 3 902-wp-12553-2023 (1) limitation and (2) the retrospective effect for the tariff with effect from 2007. 5. The forum heard the parties; however members differed in their opinions. The forum consisted two members i.e. (1) the President and (2) the Member Secretary. The Member Secretary observed that the complaint was not within limitation in terms of clause 7.8 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity ombudsman) Regulations, 2020 (“Regulations of 2020” for brevity). The clause no.7.8 is reproduced as follows for ready reference: 7.8 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. 6. It was further observed by the Member Secretary that the usage by the complainant was not classified as Public Services (others) in 2007. On these two counts, the Member Secretary rejected the complaint. 7. On the other hand, the President allowed the complaint. To allow the complaint, the President appears to have relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.8712 of 2918 dated 10.02.2020. 4 902-wp-12553-2023 8. Thus Mr. Shelke, learned Advocate for the petitioners would assail the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 on three-fold grounds. He submits that apparently in view of the Regulations of 2020, the complaint was barred by limitation. He further submits that the observations and findings rendered by the President of the Forum are absolutely unsubstantiated and lack any independent reasoning, particularly as to how the decision rendered by this Court was applicable to the case in hand. Mr. Shelke concludes his arguments with his last objection as regards to the retrospective effect given by the President of the Forum to the Public Services (others) usage tariff from 2007. 9. Mr. S. S. Panale, learned Advocate for the respondent/original complainant would stand by the order impugned in the Writ Petition. He would submit that since there was a decision of this Court, the President could not be said to have erred while allowing the complaint. 10. I heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties extensively. Apparently, there are differences of opinion in the two members of the Forum. While the President has allowed the complaint, the Member Secretary has 5 902-wp-12553-2023 dismissed the same. As per the Regulations, in such exceptional circumstances, the President has the authority to exercise the casting vote. Apparently, the President has not exercised such power. On this count itself the impugned order cannot be sustained. 11. It further appears that the President has even not discussed the issue of limitation and non applicability of the Public Services (others) usage tariff retrospectively from 2007. In view of this, I deem appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for deciding the complaint afresh. Hence, the following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition stands disposed of. b. The impugned decision and order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nashik Circle, Nashik in case no.CGRF/Jalgaon Circle, Jalgaon U & R/09-2022 is quashed and set aside. c. The matter is relegated back to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nashik Division, Nashik for deciding the complaint afresh on its own merit and without being influenced by its earlier order. d. Both the sides candidly agree to appear before the Forum on 05.10.2026. They agree that no separate notice shall be necessary for their appearance. 6 902-wp-12553-2023 e. After appearance of the parties, the Forum shall decide the complaint within a period of sixty (60) days therefrom. f. Suffice to note, the Forum shall render its specific findings as to; (1) Whether the complaint is within limitation? And (2) Whether the Public Services (others) usage tariff can be made applicable retrospectively from 2007? g. All contentions kept open. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026