Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr on 3 July 2026

J U D G M E N T

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The Appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (in short “MSEDCL”) is aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2024 of the 1st Respondent - Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in case No. 174/2023 filed by the 2nd Respondent seeking implementation of earlier order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Commission in its favour in case No. 166 of 2020.

2. While partly allowing the case No. 174 of 2023, the Commission has passed certain adverse observations against the Appellant in paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order and has also imposed penalty of Rs. One lac on the S.E., Gondia of the Appellant to be recovered from his pocket. For the sake of clarity, we extract the said paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order hereunder :

“9.5. Having ruled as above, the Commission cannot ignore MSEDCL’s casual approach towards proceedings before this Commission. The present Petition has been registered on E-filing Portal on 21 August 2023 and vide notice dated 22 August 2023, MSEDCL was directed to file its reply within 15 days. Subsequently notice for E-Hearing was issued on 6 May 2024. But MSEDCL failed to file any submission till the date of E-Hearing i.e. 21 May 2024. During the hearing, the Commission has specifically directed MSEDCL to file its reply on TFAPL’s computation. But again, MSEDCL has failed to file any submission. The Commission in its earlier Orders have recorded strong displeasure about non-fling of replies by MSEDCL on timely manner. But still, such incidences are repeating. Hence, the Commission is forced to impose penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacs Only) on the Superintending Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL. Said penalty amount be paid from pocket from concerned Officer and be deposited in MERC Office within 15 days from date of this Order.”

3. These adverse observations as well as the imposition of penalty upon an officer of the Appellant have been assailed in this appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. We may note that the Appeal is not contested by either of the two respondents as neither have they filed any response to the appeal nor did any counsel appear on their behalf to advance arguments.

5. Accordingly, we have perused the impugned order as well as the grounds of appeal and have considered arguments advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant.

6. In our considered opinion, the impugned order of the Commission suffers from fundamental errors and cannot be sustained for various reasons.

7. It was pointed out during the course of hearing by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that Appellant had actually filed reply to the petition of the 2nd Respondent vide e-mail on 15.05.2024 even though belatedly, but the Commission has not taken note of it and has incorrectly recorded in the impugned paragraph No. 9.5 of the

order that no reply has been filed by the Appellant. He further pointed out that in pursuance to order dated 21.03.2024, the Appellant had submitted its calculations vide email dated 10.07.2024 but again the Commission ignored the same and proceeded to record incorrectly that the Appellant has not filed any response to the computation of 2nd Respondent.

8. We note that Appellant had filed a review petition also before the Commission against the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025. In the said review order, the Commission has acknowledged that Appellant had filed reply to the petition vide email dated 15.05.2024 and had submitted calculations vide email dated 10.07.2024. The relevant extract of the said order is as under :- “2. Petitioner said at Para 2 that he has filed the reply through Email which was required to be filed in E filing portal of MERC. Even this reply which was to be filed within 15 days from the notice issued by Hon’ble Commission which was issued on dt. 22/8/2023 with clear direction to file the reply on E filing portal within 15 days but as per the

petitioner he has filed the reply through Email. This mail was submitted to Commission on dt. 15/5/2024 i.e. after about 9 months from the date of notice violating the Commissions directions.

3. On dt. 21/5/2024 during E hearing Hon’ble Commission directed TFAPL & MSEDCL to submit the interest calculation sheet within 7 days. TFAPL submitted the calculation on dt. 23/5/2024 i.e. within 2 days but the present Petitioner submitted the reply on 10/7/2024 i.e. after about 50 days from the date of E hearing that too on Email without filing on E filing portal again violating the Commissions directions.”

9. Considering these admitted factual aspects, we wonder as how did the Commission state in paragraph 9.5 of the impugned order that Appellant has failed to file reply as directed vide notice dated 22.08.2023 and reply to the computation of 2nd Respondent as directed during the hearing dated 21.05.2024. Both these replies had been received in the Commission’s office vide email albeit not within

the time stipulated by the Commission. Therefore, the observations of Commission in this regard in paragraph No. 9.5 are ex-facie incorrect thereby dislodging completely the basis on which penalty of Rs.1 lac was imposed.

10. The Commission ought to have recorded the delayed filing of replies by the Appellant in the impugned order and then proceeded to either discard those as having been filed beyond the stipulated time or upon condoning the delay (with or without costs) considered the replies while writing the final order. A judicial or a quasi judicial forum cannot simply ignore any pleadings or document on record. A reference to all the material pleadings or documents on record must be made in the final order followed by the reasons for discarding the same.

11. Hence, the procedure followed by the Commission in the impugned order by ignoring the replies filed by the Appellant without giving any reasons therefore, is vitiated and invalid in the eyes of law which makes the entire order legally untenable and unsustainable.

12. As a sequitur, imposing penalty upon the officer of the Appellant in pursuance to such procedural irregularity also cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

13. Further, on the aspect of the imposition of penalty also, we find that the impugned order smacks of arbitrariness and lack of cogent reasoning. We concur with the submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that imposition of penalty upon a specific officer of an organization is a serious matter and cannot be ordered in a routine or cavalier manner without first putting the concerned officer to notice about the perceived defaults attributed to him. A punitive order like the one with which we are dealing ought not to have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The office of the Appellant upon whom the penalty has been imposed was entitled to a show cause notice and only in case of no response from him or upon finding his response unsatisfactory, penalty could have been imposed. It is settled legal position that principles of natural justice are not a mere formality but must be adhered to in letter & spirit.

14. In the instance case, the Commission has nowhere explained in the impugned order as why it chose to impose the penalty upon Superintending Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL. How was he alone responsible for the defaults of the Appellant - MSEDCL is not discernible from the order. That apart, no show cause notice has been issued to him before imposing such huge penalty upon him which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The penalty appears to have been imposed in an arbitrary, illegal, unjust and casual manner. Failure to seek explanation from the concerned officer of Appellant before imposing penalty coupled with failure to give proper and justified explanation for the same undermines the legal sanctity of the impugned order.

15. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the adverse observations against the Appellant in paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order as also the imposition of penalty upon the Superintending Engineer, Gondia on account of serious procedure irregularity on the part of the Commission, as explained hereinabove. In fact such procedural irregularities committed by the

Commission go to the root of the case and render the entire impugned order perverse and legally unsustainable.

16. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the penalty imposed upon the Superintendent Engineer, Gondia, MSEDCL and also expunge the adverse observations against MSEDCL contained in paragraph No. 9.5 of the impugned order. The impugned order stand modified accordingly.

17. Appeal stands allowed in these terms. All pending IAs stand disposed of.

Pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of July, 2026.

(Virender Bhat)

(Seema Gupta)

Judicial Member

Officiating Chairperson

✓ REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

js