MUMBAI: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) on Thursday told the Bombay high court it will introduce a statement in the application form for a new connection and in the bill that they are not to be used as proof that the premises, where power is sought or supplied, is authorized or is owned.
The power distribution company replied to a suo motu petition regarding an unauthorized four-storeyed building, Om Sai Apartments, in Ghansoli village, Navi Mumbai.
The court receiver, who was directed to visit the site and obtain details, in his report said out of 29 flats, 23 are occupied.
The building had no permission and had water and electricity. Since MSEDCL granted 17 metered connections, it was added as a party.
The judges said electricity bills are produced before authorities to suggest that a structure is authorized.
MSEDCL’s advocate Deepa Chavan said power supply has nothing to do with the legality of a construction.
As it is an essential service, there is statutory obligation under the Electricity Act to provide it, she added.
Chavan informed that MSEDCL proposes to introduce the disclaimer in the bilingual – English and Marathi – statements in the application form of new connections and in electricity bills.
She also said it will be inserted from the 3rd billing cycle.
Chavan also said Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission can issue practice directions to 17 distribution licensees in the State for incorporation of the two statements.
The judges said MSEDCL’s proposed statements are sufficient.
“Mere application for electricity connection or bill by distribution licensees has nothing at all to do with planning permission for construction or erection of a structure. It is impossible to expect distribution licensees to assess the question of title to property,” they said, adding that structures must have requisite planning permissions.
With these clarifications, the judges said “the continued presence of MSEDCL is unnecessary.”
The judges said there would be no problem in ordering demolition but for flat-purchases having taken loans from cooperative banks and giving illegal flats as security to banks “There will be anarchy in planning because people will put up illegal structures and say, ‘I will pay’. …what is the difference between this and slum encroachment?…” asked Justice Patel. The judges posted the matter on January 3 for final disposal.
The power distribution company replied to a suo motu petition regarding an unauthorized four-storeyed building, Om Sai Apartments, in Ghansoli village, Navi Mumbai.
The court receiver, who was directed to visit the site and obtain details, in his report said out of 29 flats, 23 are occupied.
The building had no permission and had water and electricity. Since MSEDCL granted 17 metered connections, it was added as a party.
The judges said electricity bills are produced before authorities to suggest that a structure is authorized.
MSEDCL’s advocate Deepa Chavan said power supply has nothing to do with the legality of a construction.
As it is an essential service, there is statutory obligation under the Electricity Act to provide it, she added.
Chavan informed that MSEDCL proposes to introduce the disclaimer in the bilingual – English and Marathi – statements in the application form of new connections and in electricity bills.
She also said it will be inserted from the 3rd billing cycle.
Chavan also said Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission can issue practice directions to 17 distribution licensees in the State for incorporation of the two statements.
The judges said MSEDCL’s proposed statements are sufficient.
“Mere application for electricity connection or bill by distribution licensees has nothing at all to do with planning permission for construction or erection of a structure. It is impossible to expect distribution licensees to assess the question of title to property,” they said, adding that structures must have requisite planning permissions.
With these clarifications, the judges said “the continued presence of MSEDCL is unnecessary.”
The judges said there would be no problem in ordering demolition but for flat-purchases having taken loans from cooperative banks and giving illegal flats as security to banks “There will be anarchy in planning because people will put up illegal structures and say, ‘I will pay’. …what is the difference between this and slum encroachment?…” asked Justice Patel. The judges posted the matter on January 3 for final disposal.