The Bombay High Court in the case High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors., observed and has held that an electricity bill or connection on a certain address is not proof of ownership or legality of construction.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing the present case.
The court stated that the 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 in the case observed that an electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee. Thus, 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.
In the present case, the bench was hearing the suo motu petition instituted in connection with a structure on land under the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which had been constructed without any permission.
The bench in the case observed and has found that the entire structure had illicit water supply as well as an electricity connection. Thus, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd, MSEDCL was impleaded as a respondent.
The court in the case observed that the case at hand was not unique, inasmuch as it was a recurring phenomenon for electricity bills to be produced before authorities to justify a construction and suggest that it is legitimate because it had power supply.
The counsel, Advocate Deepa Chavan appearing for MSEDCL submitted before the court that the electricity supply had nothing to do with the legitimacy or legality of construction. It being the provided under statutory obligation of licensees to provide power. She also 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.
It was also claimed before the court that it 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 said bench is of the view that the disclaimers were sufficient and could not be treated as newly introduced restrictions.
The court stated that 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 erect ion of a structure.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani appeared as Amicus Curiae.
