IMPORTANT POINTS :• An actual consumption in excess of the contract demand is not necessary for attracting the deterrent provisions under Section 126.
• Unauthorised additional load shall be charged at the rate of twice the demand charges per KVA for the additional load till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules.

VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeals arise from three separate judgments in four writ petitions. The first of these judgments, which was followed in the other two, is impugned in W.A.No.803 of 2014. We, hence, take up for consideration first, the said writ appeal.

2. We have heard Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board [for brevity "the Board"] who is the appellant and Sri.A.A.Ziyad Rahman for the respondent in that appeal. The question raised is of legality of assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [for brevity “Act of 2003”]for exceeding the connected load. The essential challenge by the consumer is on two grounds: (i) the excess connected load alleged was approved by the Electrical Inspector and (ii) even if there is excess connected load as alleged; if the consumption does not exceed the contract load, there cannot be any penalty imposed.

3. On facts, it has to be noticed that an inspection was conducted by the Board on 17.02.2005. The respondent therein had a contract demand of 300 KVA and a connected load of 369 KVA as approved by the Electrical Inspector and the Board. There was detected an additional connected load, coming to 156 KVA, which led to an assessment under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 at twice the tariff rates applicable. The tariff rate applicable to the respondent, the fixed tariff, was Rs.270/-per KVA. Finding that the respondent had obtained an approval from the Electrical Inspector for the additional load, the assessment was confined to two months, ie:, from the date on which such approval was obtained to the date of inspection at two times as provided under Section 126 calculating the tariff at Rs.270/-per KVA on the additional load of 156 KVA.

4. Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset pointed out that Section 126 does not impose a penalty and it only speaks of an assessment and relies on the decision in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [(2012) 2 SCC 108] to further buttress the position. Section 126 is a provision to check unauthorised use of electricity. Sub-section (2) speaks of a provisional assessment and sub-section (3) necessitates objections to be called for from the person on whom such an order has been served. If the provisional assessment is not satisfied, then the Assessing Officer, on coming to the conclusion of an unauthorised use of electricity, can assess to his best of judgment for the entire period during which such unauthorised use has taken place; subject to a limitation of a six month prior period as the provision then existed. The assessment under the Section shall also be at a rate of one and a half times (as it then existed) the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. The explanation defines “unauthorised use of electricity” and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that those are not the only instances of unauthorised use; as spoken of in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Explanation (b). Sulabha Marketing v. KSEB [2017 (3) KHC 563 (DB)] is specifically referred to and pointed out that even in the case of a consumer who is found to have used electricity unauthorisedly if there is no change in tariff applicable and the actual consumption has already been metered, then the assessment under Section 126 can only be equal to twice the fixed charges payable. Here, the consumption has already been recorded and the tariff paid accordingly and the assessment under Section 126 was only at twice the fixed charges payable.

5. Sri.Raju Joseph specifically opposes the finding of the learned Single Judge that the approval required is of the Electrical Inspector alone. Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 [for brevity “Rules of 1956”] which was applicable to the subject period, speaks of approval by Inspector. Even if an approval is taken from the Electrical Inspectorate, it does not mean that the installation can be made without an approval from the