Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the proceedings for recovery of electricity dues. The Petitioner is the owner of the premises which had the electric connection No. SC 26S74 A/C. The connection was in the Petitioner's name. On 25th January, 1972 for non -payment of dues the supply was disconnected. An inspection was made by the Respondents on 10th May, 1973 and it was found that the electric energy was being supplied through the meter to the Petitioner's house in dispute. On a reading being taken it was found that considerable quantity of energy has been supplied. On the basis of this inspection the Petitioner was billed for the price of the electric energy supplied to the premises. The Petitioner has contended that after the supply had been formally disconnected for nonpayment of dues, no liability can be fastened on the Petitioner, for any energy that may have been consumed unauthorisedly by the tenant of the Petitioner, who was in actual occupation of the premises. According to the Respondents the liability of the Petitioner is still there.
(2.) SECTION 23 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act) provides for the charge of energy and Sub -section(3)(a) provides: In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a licensee may charge for energy supplied by him to any consumer (a) by the actual amount of energy so supplied. The Petitioner will accordingly be liable to pay for the supply of energy in case he is the consumer within the meaning of the Electricity Act. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Electricity Act gives the definition of the word 'consumer' in the following terms: "Consumer" means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not a consumer because the electric energy was not supplied at her instance. The contention also reversely is that unless the supplier has the intention to supply and deliberately supplies energy, the Petitioner cannot be deemed to be a consumer. It is further urged that as there is no evidence to prove that the Petitioner who was only the owner of the premises and was not residing therein, had consumed energy, she should not be made liable to pay the amount. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel as the definition of the word 'consumer' does not deal only with the 'intentional' or conscious supply or only with valid and contractual receipt of energy. It is only the actual supply of energy that is relevant. If electric energy is supplied to any person by the licensee or the Board, the liability will be there. Learned Counsel contended that as there was disconnection the supply thereof cannot be deemed to be chargeable supply of energy to the consumer. As we have already held, it is the factum of supply and not the formality of connection that is relevant for the purpose of determining Whether a person to whom energy is supplied is a consumer or not. Energy received even by tapping, pilferage and theft will amount to its receipt and the person receiving it will be a consumer.
(3.) MOREOVER , so far as the case of the Petitioner is concerned, it is covered primarily by the second clause of the definition which includes within the definition of 'consumer' any person whose premises are connected for the pose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is the owner of the premises and the premises were the Petitioner's premises. It is immaterial how and under what circumstances the supply line of the licensee is connected with the consuming line in the premises. Undoubtedly, after disconnection there was a re -connection. May be, as the Petitioner had not made any application for reconnection, the connection was not made at her request, but as the electric energy was supplied through the meter there was undoubtedly a reconnection. What is relevant is only whether the energy is supplied or not and not how a connection with the 'works' comes into being.;