JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner had a sanctioned commercial connection of 10 K.W. from Kanpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. On 3.6.2002 a surprise check was conducted by the Electricity Company in the premises of the petitioner. The report submitted by the checking party was to the effect that the petitioner was in fact using excess load and on that basis a bill for Rs. 7,27,863 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the report submitted by the checking party and also made a request for re-checking and re-assessing the load. However, when nothing was done, on 17.6.2002 the petitioner filed an appeal under Regulation 23 (1) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Consumer Regulation, 1984 before the Respondent No.1, the Appellate Committee of Kanpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. 2. After filing the appeal, the petitioner also filed writ petition No. 37709 of 2002 challenging the recovery and also with a prayer for a direction to the Appellate Committee to decide the appeal of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 9.9.2002 with a direction to the Appellate Committee to decide the appeal within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court. Thereafter on 1.2.2003 the Appellate Committee dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Appellate Committee dated 1.2.2003 as well as the consequential bill dated 6.2.2003, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the checking report dated 3.6.2002. 3. I have heard Sri H.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, at length. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. Although several issues have been decided by the appellate authority but Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me only two submissions. Firstly, since the appellate authority has itself held that the cable by which the electricity was being supplied in the premises of the petitioner was incapable of handling a load in excess of 40 K.W., the assessment that the petitioner was consuming 92 K.W. electricity and consequently the bill prepared on the basis of such excess load could not have been made. Secondly, it has been submitted that the bill for excess load has been prepared in the case of the petitioner after using the tariff rate of LMV-6, which is for industrial consumer, whereas the tariff rate applicable in the case of the petitioner would be of LMV-2, which is for commercial consumers. 4. Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, stated that although the observation of the appellate authority may be that the cable supplying the electricity in the premises of the petitioner was for supplying electricity up to 40 KW but the ultimate finding of the appellate authority is that the petitioner was using 92 K.W. It has also been contended that although the petitioner had taken a load of 10 K.W. under LMV-2 tariff, which is for commercial use (which is upto 75 KW), but since the petitioner was found to be consuming 92 KW (which can only be for industrial purposes), hence the tariff rate for LMV-6, meant for industrial purposes, would be applicable. 5. While dealing with issue No. 5 regarding the load being used by the petitioner, not only an observation but a categorical statement has been recorded by the appellate authority, which is an expert body, to the effect that the cable which was laid down to supply electricity in the premises of the petitioner was incapable of handling the load of motors of over 40 K.W. operating at a time, meaning thereby that if any load in excess of 40 K.W. was consumed by the petitioner at one time, the cable would burst. It is true that even after making such categorical statement the appellate authority while giving its finding on issue No. 5, has abruptly stated that 92 K.W. load was being consumed by the petitioner in his factory. Such finding has no basis when the appellate authority has itself found that the cable could not handle more than 40 K.W. load at one time. The consumption of the petitioner should not, thus, have been 92 K.W. In the aforesaid facts, although the petitioner would be liable for penalty and other charges for using excess load, but only on the basis of the same being calculated at 40 K.W., and not 92 K.W. 6. The consumption of the petitioner should not, thus, have been 92 K.W. In the aforesaid facts, although the petitioner would be liable for penalty and other charges for using excess load, but only on the basis of the same being calculated at 40 K.W., and not 92 K.W. 6. As regards the other submission, since it is already held that the load at which the excess charges and penalty has to be calculated is at 40 K.W. which is within the limit of 75 K.W. and thus the rate for charging penalty etc. for using excess load would be as per LMV-2 tariff which is for commercial use and not as per LMV-6 tariff, which is for industrial use. As such, the calculation of penalty etc. made by the impugned order on the LMV-6 tariff is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the appellate authority as well as the consequential bill dated 6.2.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer are both quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate committee to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made and findings recorded hereinabove, after considering the excess load of the petitioner only at 40 K.W. and calculating the same under LMV-2 tariff. Such modified bill may be issued to the petitioner at the earliest. It may be noticed that in terms of the interim order dated 3.4.2003 the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.3,32,500/- and furnished bank guarantee for the remaining amount. In case if on re-calculation, the bill is for less than the amount of Rs. 3,32,500/- already deposited by the petitioner under the interim orders passed by this Court, the balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month of the passing of the order. However, if on re-calculation the amount exceeds Rs. 3,32,500/-, the petitioner shall deposit the balance amount within one month of the same. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall thereafter be discharged. 8. This writ petition succeeds and stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost. Petition Allowed. ———