Mohit Shantilal Katariya vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Mohit Shantilal Katariya vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition disposed of with directions that pending proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law, all contentions kept open, and any future disconnection action follow due process of law. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire action of respondent Nos. 2 to 3 in invoking proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and issuing the three Assessment Bills dated 21 May 2024 (Ref. Nos. AEE / FS / SATARA / 000125, 000126 & 000127) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the MERC Regulations and respondent No.2's Guidelines, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21, warranting quashing of the Assessment Bills. +1 more

Court's answer

The pending proceedings need to be taken to their logical conclusion and in accordance with law; the Court expressed no opinion on the criminal investigation, on the powers and authority of Respondent No.1 under Sections 153 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, or on the appeal proceedings before the Competent Authority.

Ratio / Principle

All contentions of the parties in regard to the pending proceedings are expressly kept open.

Key takeaways

In the event any future action is resorted to against the petitioner for disconnection, due process of law in that regard shall be followed.ratio¶29-30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging three Assessment Bills dated 21 May 2024 (Reference Nos. AEE / FS / SATARA / 000125, 000126 & 000127) issued by respondent Nos. 2-3 invoking proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (theft of electricity), and seeking reconnection of supply to three meters at the petitioner's shop in Satara. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 10 lakhs and had moved an appeal under Section 127(1) read with Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Competent Authority (status undisclosed); an FIR for theft of electricity stood registered by respondent No. 3. The Division Bench declined to express any opinion on the criminal investigation, on the powers and authority of respondent No. 1 under Sections 153 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, or on the pending appeal; it directed that the pending proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law, expressly kept all contentions of the parties open, and directed that if any future action is resorted to against the petitioner for disconnection, due process of law be followed. Petition disposed of; no costs.

KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Digitally signed byKAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Date: 2025.04.25 11:11:21 +0530

SPEAKING910-WP-12027-2024 (C).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12027 OF 2024

Mohit Shantilal Katariya Versus State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

...Petitioner

...Respondents

Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for Petitioner.

Mr. Rahul sinha a/w Soham Bhalekar i/b DSK Legal for Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for State - Respondent No.1.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATE: 07 APRIL 2025

P.C.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying

for the following substantive reliefs:

"a. This Honble Court be pleased to declare that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the entire action of the respondent Nos.2 to 3 in invoking proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and issuing the 3 Assessment Bills dated 21 May 2024 bearing Reference Nos. AEE / FS / SATARA / 000125, AEE / FS / SATARA / 000126 & AEE / FS / SATARA / 000127 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the MERC Regulations and the respondent No.2's Guidelines, and also violative of the Petitioner's Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21, and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Assessment Bills dated 21 May 2024 bearing reference Nos. AEE / FS / SATARA / 000125, AEE / FS / SATARA / 000126 & AEE / FS / SATARA / 000127;

b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore/reconnect the electricirty supply to the Petitioner's shop, i.e. City Center at 194, Sadashiv Peth, Satara in respect of Meter No. 9226862 (Consumer No.190560366179), Meter No. 1255945 (Consumer No.190560027471) and Meter No. 1255945 (Consumer No.190560110387) forthwith, or within such time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper;"

Mr. Talkure, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that an

amount of Rs.10 Lakhs has already been deposited by the petitioner. He has

Page 1 of 2 07 April 2025

Kiran Kawre

SPEAKING910-WP-12027-2024 (C).DOC

drawn our attention that also in regard to the demand of electricity charges, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 127(1) read with Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by moving an appeal before the Competent

Authority. Copy of the appeal is annexed at Exhibit - D (page 39 of the paper book). He has no instructions on whether such appeal is decided.

We are informed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the case of the respondent No.2 is of theft of electricity by the petitioners in regard of which an FIR was also registered by respondent No.3.

Be that as it may, we do not express any opinion either on the investigation on the criminal complaint or on the powers and authority of Respondent No.1 under Section 153 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. We also do not express any opinion on the appeal proceedings as filed by the petitioner before the Competent Authority.

We are of the clear opinion that the pending proceedings need to be taken to their logical conclusion and in accordance with law.

All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

In the event, in future any action is being resorted against the petitioner for

disconnection, let due process of law in that regard be followed.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 22 April 2025.

Page 2 of 2 07 April 2025

Kiran Kawre