The Bombay High Court has held that where subsidy had been granted to a consumer in terms of an earlier Government Resolution and the subsequent Government Resolution does not expressly authorise retrospective recovery, MSEDCL cannot recover the subsidy already awarded by raising a “Debit Bill Adjustment” in a later electricity bill. The Court clarified that a complaint against such retrospective recovery is maintainable before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, because the dispute concerns the billing adjustment and not merely the Government’s grant or non-grant of subsidy. Reclassification of a consumer’s activity, even if assumed, cannot by itself be used retrospectively to justify recovery of benefits already extended.
The High Court thus held that the impugned order of the CGRF had properly considered the relevant factual and legal aspects and did not suffer from perversity or palpable error. It therefore declined to interfere and made no order as to costs. The effect of this was that the CGRF’s direction to MSEDCL to set aside the “Debit Bill Adjustment” amount along with interest and delayed payment charges remained undisturbed.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar observed that the real controversy was not about non-grant of subsidy by the Government, but about retrospective recovery of subsidy already granted by inserting a “Debit Bill Adjustment” in the bill. It noted that there was no stipulation in the Government Resolution dated June 23, 2022 authorising MSEDCL to make retrospective recovery of subsidy already awarded.
The Bench further observed that even if the later Government Resolution reclassified beneficiaries on the basis of manufacturing and non-manufacturing activity, such reclassification could at best affect future grant of subsidy and not justify recovery of subsidy already extended. It also held that the consumer’s grievance was maintainable before the CGRF because the challenge was to the debit adjustment raised through the bill and not to a governmental decision refusing subsidy.
Additionally, the Bench observed that MSEDCL had itself categorized the respondent as an industrial consumer, and that the CGRF’s conclusion regarding the nature of the respondent’s activity as a manufacturing process was based on the actual working of the unit and was not perverse.
Briefly, the petition was filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) challenging the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Amravati in CGRF Case. By that order, the CGRF had allowed the complaint of SMS Limited and directed MSEDCL to set aside the “Debit Bill Adjustment” of Rs. 3.49 crores together with interest and delayed payment charges.
The respondent was an HT industrial consumer since Dec 22, 2016 and claimed to be operating a Common Effluent Treatment Plant at Textile Park, MIDC, Amravati. MSEDCL had granted subsidy to the consumer from 2017 to 2021 under the Government Resolution dated June 29, 2016. However, in the electricity bill dated Aug 03, 2023 for July 2023, MSEDCL inserted the above amount as “Debit Bill Adjustment”, leading the consumer to challenge the retrospective recovery before the CGRF, which allowed the complaint.
