Consumption of electricity in excess of the contracted demand/sanctioned load/contracted demand amounts to unauthorized use of electricity governed solely by provisions of Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rohan Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent – Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector waives service of notice of rule. Though served, none appears for respondent no. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 9035 of 2018 and though served, none appears for respondent no. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 11589 of 2018. Heard Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner – Electricity Company and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned AGP for respondent – Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector.

2. Challenge in these petitions is to the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 17.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority & Electrical Inspector, Division Office, Nadiad under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 9035 of 2018 indicate that it is the case of the petitioner electricity company that though respondent no. 2 was having a sanctioned limit of 25 KW, when the premises was checked on 25.05.2017, it was found that the respondent no. 2 was using 91.214 KW and therefore was in excess of the sanctioned load limits by 66.214 KW from the NRGP connection. The respondent no. 2 was issued a provisional bill of Rs.3,59,913.89 ps on 30.05.2017. An opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no. 2 to file his objections and after considering the same, the petitioner company issued the final supplementary bill of Rs.3,59,913.89 on 16.06.2017. The respondent consumer filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Act before the appellate authority after deposit of 50% of assessment amount. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on the ground that in light of section 4.95 of the Supply Code, 2015, the assessment was not in accordance with Section 4.95.

3.1 Facts of Special Civil Application No. 11589 of 2018 indicate that the respondent had applied for and was granted electricity connection (NRGP) with contracted load of 9 KW. On 03.07.2017, when a surprise inspection was carried out it was noticed that the private respondent was using 18.988 KW load instead of the sanctioned load of 9 KW. The usage of the consumer was thus found to be in excess of the sanctioned load limit by 9.988 KW. The petitioner company provisionally and then finally assessed that the amount payable by the respondent consumer for unauthorized use of electricity was Rs.38,022.60 ps. On an appeal filed by the respondent consumer the appellate authority though having found that the consumer was using more than the sanctioned load, allowed the appeal by observing that there has been a breach of clause 4.95 of the Supply Code which requires a distribution licencee to issue a notice to the consumer informing such consumer that they need to prefer an application for enhancement of the sanctioned load.

4. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Appellate Authority quashing and setting aside the final order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Act only on the ground of violation of Clause 4.95 of the Supply Code is erroneous and contrary to law. He would contend that Section 126 of the Act contains the method of computing the amount that a consumer would be liable to pay for excessive consumption of electricity, being in the nature of unauthorised use of electricity. The purpose of Section 126 is to check and prevent misuse or unauthorized of electricity, and the section is a complete code in itself in so far as it relates to the manner of dealing with cases of unauthorised use of electricity. He would submit that Regulations framed by the Commission in exercise of power under Section 50 of the Act have no play in cases of unauthorized use of electricity covered under Section 126 of the Act or theft covered under Section 135 of the Act. He would urge that in the facts of the present case once the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of fact that there was consumption by consumer of e