Electricity connection not proof of authorised structure or ownership, MSEDCL clarifies before HC

On August 28, a division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal R Khata, while initiating a suo motu writ plea, noted that the issue of a building in Navi Mumbai had disclosed a problem “endemic” to development in all areas falling under the municipal corporation. In September, the bench stated that such rampant illegalities would not be allowed “under its watch”.

The court had contemplated making the MSEDCL a party respondent in the matter as it had provided electricity connection to occupiers of the concerned building and had sought its response.

On Thursday, advocate Deepa Chavan, representing the MSEDCL, told the bench that the electricity supplier has nothing to do with the legality of the construction as it is an essential service based on statutory obligations. Chavan accepted that there is a distinct possibility of misusing power supply bills or people attempting to gain an undue advantage because such bills are routinely issued for actual power consumption.

Chavan submitted that application for electricity connection cannot be used as proof of authorised structure and bills issued by the discom cannot be a proof of an ownership of the structure.

She added that as per Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) regulations, every distribution company in the state is required to insert the same in the application form for new connections or bills issued to the consumers in English and Marathi and the same is being incorporated. The bench accepted the statements by the MSEDCL.

“Mere application for electricity connection made to distribution licensee or issuance of bill has nothing at all to do with planning permissions for construction or erection of structure… It is impossible from distribution licensee to assess questions of title to property in question, let alone assess questions of whether structures do or do not have requisite planning permission,” it added.

Justice Patel stated that under the planning statute called Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, no distribution licensee is considered a planning or local authority. With these clarifications, the continued presence of the MSEDCL is unnecessary, and no formal amendment is required, the bench noted and refused to make the MSEDCL a party to the matter.

The bench posted further hearings in the plea to January 3, when it is likely to fix a date for the final hearing.