the license e , to any other person , or pre m ises, unless he has been permit t ed to do so un d er the Act of 2003, or holds th e license for distribution, or sal e of electricity granted by the Commission/State Government. 10. In the instant case, there is no wrangle that the present petitio n er was further supplying the electricity to hi s tenants, and for the said act, t he petitioner h ad no authorized permissio n by the respondent/Corporati o n, therefore, i t is a clear cut case of violation of Regulation 8.8.2 of the Sup p ly Code of 2 0 14. Further, from the record, it is reflected that the petitio n er himself wa s not running any manufactu r ing unit, for which, he took t he electricity c onnection from the respondent / PSPCL, therefore, it is a clear cut case of resa l e of electricity, in terms of the R egulation 8.8.2 (supra). 11. Learned counsel for the petiti o ner has placed reliance upon t he Commercia l Circular No.41 of 2024, alon g with Chapter-VIII of the Sup p ly Code of 2 0 14, and as per the Regulation 49 thereof, which prescribes t he unauthorized use of the electricity, and as per proviso (v), sub-clause (2) of Regulation 49, the use of supply by the tenant(s)/occupier(s), in the sa m e premises a n d for the same purpose for w hich the usage of electricity w as authorized b y the distribution licensee, b y installation of sub-meter for t he purpose of a ccounting of energy shall not b e considered as resale. 12. This Court has also considere d the above submission, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The p erusal of the Commercial Circ u lar No.41 of 2 024, reflects that the said R egulation came into force w. e .f. 14.11.2024. This Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for t he petitioner, a s to how the said Regulation can be applied retrospectively, to which, he i s unable to answer.
