Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The petitioner started developing a multi-storeyed complex. Undisputedly he proposed to construct 16 dwelling units in the said multi-storeyed complex. For the purpose of carrying development work, he applied for and obtained supply of 2 KW. Subsequently the same was enhanced to 5 KW. He has almost completed the project. He has given possession of the dwelling units to 8 occupants. They have applied for supply of electricity but supply of electricity has not been provided to them, inasmuch as the petitioner has not yet been able to obtain occupancy certificate from the appropriate authority. The occupancy certificate has two objects one to certify that the construction as was proposed has been completed and the other that the construction as was sanctioned has been constructed in accordance therewith. If the occupancy certificate had been obtained by the petitioner, that would have deemed that the commercial project of the petitioner has been completed. 2. In such view of the matter, in law, in respect of the said project still commercial activities are going on, however, the residents have started occupying dwelling units. In these years of enlightenment, no human being living in a metropolis can live in darkness. Supply of electricity has not yet been obtained from the supplier of electricity and accordingly it is claimed that they are depending on generators. It has been mentioned that two generators one having capacity of 7.5 KW. and the other having capacity of 5 KW. have been installed. In the meantime, a lift has been installed and a pump set has also been installed both having electric motors of 5 HP. Lighting in the common space has been installed and at the time of inspection carried out in terms of Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 135 of the Act, it appeared that those are connected with the commercial supply obtained.by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the pump set was being run through such electricity but the lift was not being run. In my opinion, these are questions of fact and accordingly it would not be possible to go into those aspects of the matter. However, if a lift is installed, that itself suggests that the lift had been run but the same may not be continued to be in use thereafter. 3. In my opinion, these are questions of fact and accordingly it would not be possible to go into those aspects of the matter. However, if a lift is installed, that itself suggests that the lift had been run but the same may not be continued to be in use thereafter. 3. It is true that when normal inspections are carried out for the purpose of carrying out normal business, the supplier of electricity is required to visit the premises on notice and at reasonable time but when such inspection is to catch a thief, it is not so required and the same would be evidenced by looking at the provisions contained in Secs. 163 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. It was submitted that there was no reason to suspect theft of electricity. The fact that a huge premises is being occupied by a large number of dwellers with a meagre supply of 5 KW. is enough reason to suspect that electricity was being pilfered. It is true that all the equipments connected with the supply are not usually run at one time but at the same time it is also possible that they may run, may not be all time, but.for some time. It would, therefore, anybodys guess as to whether the same were being run continuously or for a given period or were not being run at all. In the circumstances, the onus lies upon the person, who is contending that those equipments were not being run at all, to establish the same to get away from the liability of paying the value of electricity pilfered. 5. In those circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed but it will not prevent the petitioner to go back to the authority concerned to establish that the equipments which were connected to the supply as had been reported, in Annexure-5 to the writ petition were not being run at all or were running for a time specified. It shall be the obligation of the petitioner to prove the statements which are to be made by him. 6. It shall be the obligation of the petitioner to prove the statements which are to be made by him. 6. Once a person has been caught committing theft of electricity, he is not entitled to supply of electricity unless he pays the amount of pilfered electricity and accordingly until the petitioner pays the determined amount of pilfered electricity, he will have no right to obtain supply of electricity or to ask for installation of a meter. Thieves cannot come and get anything from this Court.