In a recent decision by the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) won a case against several companies for using electricity without permission in Mulund, Mumbai. The court's decision, delivered by Judge Amit Borkar on November 28, 2025, stressed the importance of following electricity usage rules.
The case was about MSEDCL's claim that several companies, including Hitesh Plastics, were using electricity for business purposes in places only approved for industrial use. The issue was first discovered on January 5, 2010, when MSEDCL's inspection team checked the premises and found unauthorized business activities.
"The inspection report clearly showed business use," stated the court.
Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, were important in this case. Section 126 is about using electricity without permission, while Section 127 gives a right to challenge the assessment. The court clarified that the tenant or person using the premises, if given an assessment order, is considered someone affected and can challenge it.
The court found that Respondent No. 2, even though claiming to be a legitimate user, did not reveal his business activities and did not get the necessary approvals. The court emphasized that being a consumer means having a direct agreement with the electricity provider.
"His use was hidden. It was unauthorized," the court noted.
Respondent No. 2 argued he was unaware of the price changes introduced in June 2008. However, the court ruled that once price orders are published officially, they apply to all users, whether they know about them or not.
"Not knowing about the price is not an excuse," the judgment stated.
The court also addressed the issue of SSI registration, noting that it is specific to the place for which it is granted. Respondent No. 2's claim that one certificate covered multiple places was rejected.
The court overturned the Appellate Authority's order of August 1, 2011, which had wrongly treated the issue as a price classification dispute. The court restored MSEDCL's final assessment from March 26, 2010, enforcing the consequences of using electricity without permission.
"The multiplier set by Section 126(6) is required. It cannot be changed, ignored, or replaced," the court concluded.
The court ruled in favor of MSEDCL, confirming that the companies used electricity without permission and must face the consequences as outlined in the law. This decision highlights the need for businesses to follow electricity usage laws to avoid big penalties.
"The responsibility under Section 126 must be enforced completely as required by the law," the judgment emphasized.
The case underscores the importance of understanding and following the rules for electricity use, especially in industrial and business settings.
