The Supreme Court has held that power distribution companies are under an obligation to supply electricity to consumers and cannot be permitted to snap connection if the meter is removed from the premise or a complaint of power theft has been lodged against the occupant.
laying down this law, the Vacation Bench of Justices AK Patnaik and Ranjan Gogoi directed the power distribution company BSES to restore power to a premises situated in Delhi’s Vasant Kunj after installation of a fresh meter. The power company had disconnected electricity supply after it lodged a case of power theft against the occupant of the premise after discovering that the electricity to the house in question was not metered.
According to BSES, the occupant, a lady doctor by profession, drew non-metered power since 2007 which amounted to electricity theft under the Electricity Act 2003. A case was brought against the occupant before the Electricity Court pending which the power supply was disconnected.
The occupant on the other hand submitted that there was a meter at the premises which had got removed by the owner of the premise in collusion with BSES sometime between July 28-30, 2007. The house in question was leased as a company guesthouse and the occupant being an employee of the same company had come to reside in it. She was willing to pay the bill if a new meter was installed. However, she opposed to be dragged in court by the BSES for power theft and being deprived of electricity for none of her fault.
The Bench stood convinced that electricity was a basic necessity and the licensee (BSES) was under a statutory obligation to supply electricity to all premises within its area. The judges quoted Section 43 of the Act which said, “It is the duty of every licensee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premise within its area.”
In the case at hand, the court found that instead of ensuring supply of electricity the respondent 1 (BSES) “is taking resort to a defence to ensure that electricity is not supplied in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” The court was of the view that the occupant lady would face severe hardship in the event the owner was not willing to restore the meter or continue with supply of electricity. The Bench concluded that the occupier of the premise had an independent right under Section 43 of the Act to avail of electricity supply.
The Bench got angered when BSES counsel pointed out that such order could have ramifications on all electricity theft cases pending in various courts. The Bench segregated the two issues. “We are not concerned with the electricity theft case…it is for the Electricity Court to decide the case in accordance with law. We are concerned with the supply of electricity to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act.” Giving 48 hours deadline to install a new meter, BSES was directed to restore power supply to the said premises.