1. The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P11 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, through which an assessment finalised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act for short) is re-opened and a reassessment is made enhancing the quantum of penalty.

2. Facts revealed in brief is that, pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12.08.2011, penalty under Section 126 was imposed alleging unauthorised use of electricity on the basis of detection of unauthorised connected load. The amount of penalty imposed through Exhibit P3 was remitted by the petitioner, on 25.08.2011, as evident from Exhibit P5 receipt. Subsequently Exhibit P7 notice was issued intimating that the penalty was re-assessed and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount. Allegation in Exhibit P7 is that the Senior Audit Officer had pointed out that the penalty charged was not in accordance with the Board's directions, because the penalisation for unauthorised extension was not charged. Allegation was raised to the effect that, on inspection conducted on 12.08.2011 unauthorised extension of temporary connection to newly constructed building, which had not received energisation approval, was detected. By Exhibit P7 the original penalty of Rs.2,45,970/- imposed was revised to Rs.14,76,000/- and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance of Rs.12,30,030/-.

3. The petitioner submitted detailed objections as per Exhibit P8 and a personal hearing was afforded by the 2nd respondent. The proposal for enhancement was confirmed through Exhibit P11, and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount. Exhibit P11 order is under challenge, in this writ petition, based on various grounds.

4. The petitioner inter alia contended that the inspection was not conducted by the duly authorised officer. He also contended that, penalisation made under LT VIII Tariff treating the unauthorised additional connected load as unauthorised temporary extension, is not sustainable. But sheet-Anchor of the contentions is regarding lack of jurisdiction vested on the 2nd respondent to re-open, revise or re-assess the penalty once finalised. Therefore, the question posed on the aspect of lack of jurisdiction is examined in detail.

5. Contention of the respondent in the counter affidavit is that, the reassessment is made on the basis of audit conducted by officials of the Accountant General of Kerala and is made on the basis of directions issued by the Audit Officers. The amount now reassessed remained unassessed, and hence the Board has got power to realise the same under Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. It is also contended that since the petitioner had extended supply to unoccupied premises, he is liable to be penalised under LT VIII Tariff.

6. Under Section 126 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make a best judgment assessment of the electricity charges payable, on a person who has been found indulging in unauthorised use of electricity. Sub Section (1) requires the Assessing Officer to make the assessment on a provisional basis and to serve an order of provisional assessment on the consumer. Sub Section (3) envisages procedure for finalisation of the assessment, after giving opportunity to file objections and opportunity of personal hearing. Sub Section (5) deals with the extent of penalty which can be assessed, and Sub Section (6) deals with the quantum of penalty. Explanation contained therein clarify the term, 'unauthorised use of electricity'. Section 127 of the Act provides for a statutory appeal against the final assessment. The above provisions will clearly indicate that a self contained code is prescribed regarding the procedure to be adopted, when unauthorised use of electricity is detected. The Assessing Officer, empowered through notification issued under the Act, is discharging a quasi- judicial function in finalising the assessment. Once the Assessing Officer f