Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 2(g) defines "energy" which means electrical energy"-

(i)generated, transmitted or supplied for any message;
(ii)used for any purpose except the transmission of a message;

Section 2(h) defines 'licensee' which means any person licensed under Part II to supply energy.

8. The older definition of the term "consumer" has been amended by Act 32 of 1959 and at present a consumer means any person who is supplied with energy by (a) licensee (b) Government and (c) 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. It appears that it is expressly made clear that this definition would include any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy, whether that person is actually receiving at that time any energy or not. I have already indicated that the expression 'energy' means electrical energy. Thus the word 'consumer' with reference to the expression "whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose" does not include in the case of a Mill, the Manager thereof. In order to be a consumer the person must be either a person to whom energy for any other purpose but transmission of a message was supplied or he was owner or occupier of the premises connected up with the supply company's electric system. A person who is a registered consumer falls under the definition of 'consumer'. The definition of the word 'consumer' does not deal only with the intentional or conscious supply or only with a valid and contractual receipt of energy. It is only the actual supply of energy which is relevant. If electrical energy is supplied to any person by the licensee or the Board, he will be a consumer. Thus the definition of 'consumer' will include a person receiving energy even by tappoing pilferage and theft. This is one part of the definition of consumer. Second part of this definition of consumer includes with in its ambit any person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. It is immaterial how and under what circumstances the supply line is connected with the consuming line in the premises. May be as the connection was not made at the owner's request but as electrical energy was supplied to the meter, there was undoubtedly a connection. What is relevant is only whether energy is supplied or not from the connection.

The definition of 'consumer' including any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee and any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of a supply of energy with the works of the licensee. Therefore prima facie, it should be enough to prove either that energy was supplied for use of the persons or that the persons were owners or occupiers of premises connected up with the licensee's electric system.

10. In view of the above definition it is clear that Usha Alloy Steel Ltd. is a consumer and the petitioner Jhawar being the owner of Usha Steel Ltd. will a also come within the purview of Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act.

19. I now pass on to consider the next question argued on behalf of the petitioners, namely, whether without prosecuting the Company, the petitioners can be proceeded against. In this context the argument of Dr. Pal is the Company being a public Limited Company, Jhawar cannot be said to be the owner of the Company Similarly Kapilahas been wrongly described as the Chief Executive Officer and he being only the special advisor of the Company, cannot be held responsible for the alleged offence. In the FIR allegation against Jhawar is that being the owner of the Company he has connived with the officials of the Board to commit the offence. It is not in dispute that the Company is the consumer under the Board. Whether being the owner, he is taking part in running the company again is also a question of fact which cannot be gone into at this stage. Similarly, whether Kapila was advisor or the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, is to be decided at the proper stage. This aspect of the matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Prasad Shartna and Ors. (supra) where their Lordships, after noticing the definition of the 'consumer' in Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, observed as follows:-