JUDGMENT :

S.G. MEHARE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a consumer of the petitioner. He took an electricity supply to run his printing press. For his printing press, an Industrial tariff was applied. He closed down the printing press. He gave his premises to respondent No. 2 on leave and licence. He opened the coaching classes on that premises in 2010. On his application, the load was enhanced. The petitioner’s personnel visited the premises on 27.12.2017 and found that respondent No. 2 was using the electric supply for commercial purposes without changing the tariff. Therefore, it was unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Explanation (b)(iv) to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short). The officers drew the spot panchnama. There was no dispute that on the day of the inspection, respondent No. 2 was running a coaching class on the premises with the old electric supply under the leave and licence agreement. The petitioner assessed the provisional bill for the changed user, and notice was served upon the person