We accept both these as being sufficient. It is our understanding that these statements disclaimers or clarifications are not newly introduced restrictions or conditions. They only make explicit that which was already a part of the law on the subject for the mere application for an electricity connection made to a distribution licensee or the issuance of a bill for power consumption by the distribution licensee has nothing at all to do with planning permissions for the construction and erection of a structure. An electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee. All that the licensee requires to know is the address to which power is to be supplied and in whose name it is to be billed. It is impossible to expect a distribution licensee to act beyond the remit of the statute to assess questions of title to the property in question let alone assess questions of whether the structure or structures or apartments or units do or do not have the requisite planning permissions. Notably, even under the planning statute, namely the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”), no distribution licensee is a planning authority for these purposes. It is not even a local authority for the purposes of the MRTP Act.{Para 6}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2023
High Court On Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra
CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 30th November 2023
1. As previous orders show, this Sou Motu Writ Petition has
been instituted because we discern an egregious situation on a
particular plot of land within the command area of the Navi
Mumbai Municipal Corporation (“NMMC”). The entire structure
is without any permission whatsoever. Flats have been created and
are occupied by various individuals who have been joined and who
are represented before us. We found that the structure has water
supply although even this is illicit. We also found that there is power
supply to the structure. It is on account of this that we required the
addition of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd
(“MSEDCL”) as a party Respondent to the Petition.
2. On the last occasion we outlined what we perceived to be a
problem not just in this case but a recurrent issue in almost every
single situation, viz., that electricity bills are routinely produced
before authorities as if to suggest that because there is power supply
therefore the structure not only exists but is legal, legitimate and
possibly authorised. Even without obtaining fuller instructions, Ms
Chavan was quick to point out that this can never be the case. The
supply of electricity has nothing at all to do with the legitimacy or
legality of the construction. It is merely a service (or perhaps an
essential service) that is provided because it is the statutory
obligation of licensees of various descriptions under the Electricity
Act, 2003 to provide power. She accepted that there is a distinct
possibility of power supply bills being misused or of people
attempting to gain undue advantage because such bills are routinely
issued for actual power consumption.
3. After instructions, Ms Chavan has prepared a note. This
proposes the introduction bilingually of an important caveat or
disclaimer both in the application forms for new connections and in
the bills issued for each consumer. The English version in the new
connection application form would read, Ms Chavan submits, thus:
“This application for power supply when processed and
considered by the distribution licensee cannot be treated or
utilised as proof that the premises for which the power
supply is sought is an authorised structure nor would such
consideration of an application by the distribution licensee
amount to proof of ownership of premises.”
4. Correspondingly in the bills that are issued the proposal is to
include the following statement:
This bill for power supply cannot be treated or utilised as
proof that the premises for which the power supply has
been granted is an authorised structure nor would the
issuance of the bill amount to proof of ownership of the
premises.
5. The corresponding translations in Marathi are also proposed.
6. We accept both these as being sufficient. It is our
understanding that these statements disclaimers or clarifications are
not newly introduced restrictions or conditions. They only make
explicit that which was already a part of the law on the subject for
the mere application for an electricity connection made to a
distribution licensee or the issuance of a bill for power consumption
by the distribution licensee has nothing at all to do with planning
permissions for the construction and erection of a structure. An
electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove
ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution
licensee. All that the licensee requires to know is the address to
which power is to be supplied and in whose name it is to be billed. It
is impossible to expect a distribution licensee to act beyond the
remit of the statute to assess questions of title to the property in
question let alone assess questions of whether the structure or
structures or apartments or units do or do not have the requisite
planning permissions. Notably, even under the planning statute,
namely the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
(“MRTP Act”), no distribution licensee is a planning authority for
these purposes. It is not even a local authority for the purposes of
the MRTP Act.
7. Ms Chavan clarifies that these clarifications will be issued as
practice directions to the 17 or so distribution licensees in the State
of Maharashtra by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission (“MERC”). Ms Chavan also clarifies that these
insertions will be added from the third billing cycle onwards.
8. With these clarifications, the continued presence of
MSEDCL in these proceedings is unnecessary. We will not require a
formal amendment once again of the Petition..
9. List the matter itself initially for directions on 3rd January
2024 when we propose to fix a date for final disposal of the matter.
At the final hearing we will undoubtedly have to hear the person —
we hesitate to call him the owner or the developer — who was
responsible for the construction and the various persons in
occupation of different units or tenements in the building.
10. The matter will be treated as part heard at the joint request of
the parties.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 5 of 5
No comments:
Post a Comment