Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1224/2006. The said Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P7 order passed by the 3rd respondent and Exhibit P8 reassessment bill issued by the 1st respondent and for other consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 20.1.2014 dismissed the said Writ Petition and it is aggrieved by that judgment the appellant is before us in this Writ Appeal.

2. The appellant is an SSI unit having a Colour Photo Processing Lab and Studio. The appellant’s industrial unit has two electric connections. Electric connection to the Colour Photo Processing Lab with Consumer No.9923 is an industrial connection under the industrial tariff LT-IV and that to the Studio with Consumer No.12467 is a commercial connection under the W.A.No.410/14 -2- commercial tariff LT-VIIA. In the industrial connection with Consumer No.9923, there is a power meter as well as a light meter.

3. On 3.3.2005, the appellant's premises was inspected by the Anti-Power Theft Squad (APTS for short). As evident from Exhibit P1 site mahazar, in the inspection conducted by the APTS, it was found that, the power supply through the light meter was being used for the neon lights and air conditioners in the studio, which are covered under the commercial connection under the tariff LT-VIIA. The finding in Exhibit P1 site mahazar is to the effect that, the appellant was misusing electricity for industrial purpose under the tariff LT-IV for commercial use, attracting higher tariff under LT-VIIA. In such circumstances, the appellant was issued with Exhibit P2 demand for Rs.10,80,282/-, demanding energy charges at LT-VIIA tariff for the period from 22.11.2003, less the amount already paid under LT-IV tariff.

4. Exhibit P2 was followed by Exhibit P3 communication of the 1st respondent, furnishing the details of the assessment made in Exhibit P2. It is stated in Exhibit P3 that, in the inspection conducted by the APTS, it was found that the energy supplied under industrial tariff for the Colour Lab Processing unit was being utilised by the appellant for purposes other than Computerised Colour Processing. A major portion of the energy under industrial tariff was utilised for commercial purpose in the sales counter attached and hence, re-assessment was made from the date of order, at commercial tariff.

5. Aggrieved by Exhibits P2 and P3, the appellant submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the demand made in Exhibit P2 in W.P.(C)No.10683/2005 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to treat Exhibit P3 as a provisional order and to consider Exhibit P4 objections submitted by the appellant and pass appropriate orders thereon. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent issued Exhibit P5 order, by which the appellant was reassessed by billing in LT-VIIA tariff for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. The 1st respondent assessed the appellant under Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, at a rate equal to one and a half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service, for 6 months and demanded the balance amount of Rs.7,61,240/-. It was also made clear that, the appellant will be billed under the tariff LT-VIIA, until he removes the connected load which is being used for commercial purpose at its premises.

6. Exhibit P5 order issued by the 1st respondent was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.19734/2005 and this Court by Exhibit P6 judgment relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The said appeal filed before the 3rd respondent was disposed of vide Exhibit P7 order and the appellant was issued with Exhibit P8 bill of the 1st respondent for Rs.14,87,016/-, demanding a sum of Rs.6,22,587/-, after deducting the payment already made by him. As can be seen from Ex