Electricity Connection On Particular Address Not Proof Of Ownership, Legality Of Construction: Bombay High Court
A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court has held that an electricity bill or connection on a certain address is not proof of ownership or legality of construction.An electricity distribution licensee cannot possibly assess questions of title of the property and check if the apartment or units have the necessary planning permissions, the court said....
A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court has held that an electricity bill or connection on a certain address is not proof of ownership or legality of construction.
An electricity distribution licensee cannot possibly assess questions of title of the property and check if the apartment or units have the necessary planning permissions, the court said.
“An electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee... 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.”
The Bench was hearing a suo motu petition instituted in connection with a structure on land under the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which had been constructed without any permission.
During previous hearings, the bench had found that the entire structure had illicit water supply as well as an electricity connection. Accordingly, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd ("MSEDCL") was impleaded as a respondent.
It was observed that the case at hand was not unique, inasmuch as it was a recurring phenomena for electricity bills to be produced before authorities to justify a construction and suggest that it is legitimate because it had power supply.
Advocate Deepa Chavan appeared for MSEDCL and submitted that electricity supply had nothing to do with the legitimacy or legality of construction. It was a service provided under statutory obligation of licensees to provide power. She conceded that there was a possibility of electricity supply bills being misused, and thus, proposed a disclaimer and caveat in the application forms for new connections and in consumer bills.
These bilingual disclaimers, it was claimed, would be published in Marathi and English, and would state that the connection or corresponding bill cannot be used as proof to demonstrate ownership or legality of construction.
The Bench was of the view that the disclaimers were sufficient and could not be treated as newly introduced restrictions.
“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,” the court said.
Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani appeared as Amicus Curiae
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary & Ors., Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2/2023