IA/5971/2014 For the reasons stated in the application, we recall our order dated 12.8.2014. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RP/4225/2011 This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (“MSEDCL” for short), questioning the correctness of order dated 5.10.2005, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in Appeal No.09/1396. By the said order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent/Complainant and directed the petitioners to reconnect the electric supply to Respondent/complainant’s flour mill forthwith and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the light of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad – (2013)8 SCC 491 – (2013)8 SCC 491, the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows : “From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that the "consumer" as defined Under Section 2(15) includes any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee and also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, irrespective of the fact whether such person is supplied with electricity for his own use or not. Per contra under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 those who were supplied with electricity for commercial purpose and those who do not avail services for consideration, irrespective of electricity connection in their premises do not come within the meaning of "consumer".” (Emphasis supplied) It has thus, been held that a person who has been supplied with electricity for commercial purpose, is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. As a necessary corollary, a complaint under the Act in respect of commercial electricity connection would not be maintainable. In the present case, it is manifest from the material on record that the electricity connection in question was being used for commercial purpose for running a flour mill. The complaint in the present case was filed by the complainant against a Notice issued under Section 135/138/152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, when on inspection it was found that the consumer had committed theft of 23919 units and caused loss of Rs.72,000/- to the MSEB for the years. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. It will, however, be open to the respondent to seek redressal of his grievance by availing any other appropriate remedy, as may be available to him, except a complaint under the Act. If he does so, with an application for condonation of delay in taking recourse to such remedy, his application shall be considered keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3)SCC 583. Before parting, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Ms.Vasundhra Bhardwaj as amicus curiae. A sum of `10,000/- shall be paid to her from the Consumer Legal Aid Account as out of pocket expenses. | 
