ORAL JUDGMENT F. I. REBELLO, J.:- The first petitioner is a company incorporate under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1930 which carries of business inter alia of generation and distribution of electricity. Petitioner No.2 is a shareholder of the company. Respondent No. 1 is the appellate authority appointed under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred t as "Act"). The respondent No.2 is an original consumer of the first petition having a two storied bungalow. The petitioner by the present petition challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 18-3-2005 which hereinafter shall. referred to as the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of section 127 of the Act. By the impugned order the first respondent directed that the assessment charged for the unauthorized use of the electricity b respondent No. 2 shall be limited for a period of three months immediately the date of detection of the illegality. That order is the subject-matter sent petition. 2. There were several other petitions including Writ Petition No. 2156 of writ Petition No. 2157 of 2006, Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2006 and Writ No. 2159 of 2006, wherein also one of the challenges was to limiting the of electricity dues as is the present challenge. There was also another challenge before the appellate authority in those proceedings. The respondent No.2 proceedings held that the order of assessment was not passed by the Assessing Officer. Ordinarily this issue had to be decided in those petitions. As in petitions none appeared for the private respondents and were ex parte and as respondent No.2, the present respondent is represented in this petition, we thought private to decide that controversy also in the present petition, after hearing I for the respondent No.2 as well as counsel holding for respondent No. I. 3. The two issues therefore, which will be decided in this petition are : (1) Whether section 127 of the Electricity Act, limits the power of the Assessing officer to recover charges, for unauthorised use of electricity, for the period of months or six months as the case may be preceding the inspection and ion of the unauthorised use. The two issues therefore, which will be decided in this petition are : (1) Whether section 127 of the Electricity Act, limits the power of the Assessing officer to recover charges, for unauthorised use of electricity, for the period of months or six months as the case may be preceding the inspection and ion of the unauthorised use. (2) Whether on the inspection done by the other than assessing Officer considering the language of section 126, is it o the Assessing Officer to rely on that inspection record for the purpose of g a provisional assessment and thereafter, passing an order of assessment section 126(5) of the Act. 4. We may gainfully refer to the provisions of section 126 of the Electricity 003 which reads as under: "126. (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used or after; inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in-charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom a notice has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who may, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the license within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. Provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount, he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever. . Provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount, he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever. . (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorised use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domes and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediate preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of service unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to one and half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service specified in sub-section (5). Explanation: For the purposes of this section: (a) "assessing officer" means an officer of a State Government or BQ or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the St Government; (b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity _ (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tamper meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electric was authorised." The next provision which we may refer to is section 135(2) which reads under: "135. Theft of electricity. - (1) whoever, dishonestly, (2) Any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government may (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being us unauthorizedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such device instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been or being used for unauthorised use of electricity. (c) examine or seize books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under s section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extra there from in his presence ... " We may now refer to section 56. "56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment. " We may now refer to section 56. "56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment. - (1) Where person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other tha charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the general company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or Wheel of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, a giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing to such per and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other s by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property such licensee or the generating company through which electricity have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, paid, but no longer; Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person posits, under protest, - a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity." (Emphasis supplied) We shall first deal with the issue as to whether there is limitation on the of the Assessing officer to restrict the claim of the company only for period of three months immediately preceding the date of investigation in case of and agricultural services and for the period of six months immediately proceeding the date of investigation for all other categories of services. behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that a perusal of section 126(5) ct would make it clear, that the limitation set out therein of three months only raises a presumption that there was unauthorised use of electricity for that period. The section enables the assessee to rebut that presumption. It is no bar on the rights of the company to make recovery of legal per law. It will therefore, be still open to the Company to make recovery the period of three months and or six months respectively to the extent company is entitled to claim within the meaning of the schedule to the ion Act, 1963. It is submitted that any other view taken would result even . Company is in a position to establish that there was unauthorised use for a period, being denied the right to make recovery. This must be seen in the t of section 145 of the Act which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court extent referred therein : "145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction. - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of, any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." On the other hand on behalf of the contesting respondents No.2, it is submitted that the view taken by the respondent No. 1 is a view capable of being in law and as such the order cannot be faulted. Shri Sawant appearing for State Government concedes that it is not possible to support the order of respondent No. 1 restricting the right of the company and that section 126(5) of the Act, merely creates a presumption. 6. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to all dings before a Court and or before tribunal when made applicable. The only exception being section 29 of the Limitation Act. section 29(2) of Limitation Act, reads as under: "29. Savings. - (1). 6. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to all dings before a Court and or before tribunal when made applicable. The only exception being section 29 of the Limitation Act. section 29(2) of Limitation Act, reads as under: "29. Savings. - (1). (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal application a period of limitation different from the period prescribe the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal application by any special or local law, the provisions contain section 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." The interpretation of section 29(2) has been the subject matter of various judgments. We may however, gainfully refer to the judgment in Union of 1 vs. Popular Construction Co .. (2001) 8 SCC 470 . That was the case under see 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Apex Court held that provisions of section will apply when: (i) there is a special or local law which prescribes a different period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application; and (ii) the special or local law does not expressly exclude those sections In that case it was held that section 34 of the Limitation Act was a special law which provides for period of limitation different than the prescribed the Limitation Act. The Court held as under: "If there were any residual doubt on the interpretation of the lan used in section 34, the scheme of the 1996 Act would resolve the is favour of curtailment of the Courts powers by the exclusion of operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act." In other words, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that section provided for special limitation other than provided under the Limitation 1963 and the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act which extends of limitation in certain cases would not be applicable. In the instant case, all that section 126(5) sets out is that the Ass Officer if he reaches the conclusion that there is unauthorised use of elect then considering the presumption can hold that there is assessment of unauthorised use of electricity which was continuing for a period of three or six months, immediately preceding the date of inspection as set out earilier This presumption of three months or six months can be rebutted by the occupier or possessor of such premises or place. This would indicate section does not prohibit the recovery for the period under which company have normally recovered its dues in terms of the schedule to the Limitation The embargo is limited to the extent of raising presumption which rebuttable presumption for the period of three months or six months respectively Section 126(5) is therefore, not a special provision provided for Ii independent of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Unlike Arbitrati Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no special limitation provided and that be case, it will be difficult to hold that the person like the company in the case, who is petitioner herein is barred from making recovery for the which in normal law would be the period for recovery of money. This is further led by the language of section 56 of the Act section 56( I) makes it clear that enerating company can exercise the right, without prejudice to its right to suit. In other words, the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court certain a suit for recovery of legal dues. In such a case, it will be the Limitation Act which will apply insofar as recovery of dues are concerned. If on 56 is now seen in the context of section 126, all that happens under, n 126, is that, if the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that there is authorised use of electricity, then there is a presumption that such unauthorised is for a period of three months and six months respectively as the case may , not rebutted by the assessee. The consequence of such assessment are, for period, in terms of section 126(6), the assessment is at a rate equal to one and times the applicable tariff. The remedy of the company to make recovery dditional periods for unauthorised use is not limited. The consequence of such assessment are, for period, in terms of section 126(6), the assessment is at a rate equal to one and times the applicable tariff. The remedy of the company to make recovery dditional periods for unauthorised use is not limited. A careful reading of on 145, will show that the ouster of jurisdiction is in respect of detection of authorised use. Neither section 126 or section 127, ousts the jurisdiction of the , Court for entertaining a suit at the instance of a generating company for any period, which in law is recoverable and not barred by the law of limitation clear from a reading of section 56( 1) of the Act. The power of the Assessing officer is, therefore, limited to detection of unauthorised use and to pass an order of recovery which limits the period to three months or six months as the case. and make assessment in terms of section 126(6) for that period. Where the has provided for a special limitation, it has so provided, for example, section (2) and section 127 of the Act. I In our opinion, such a construction, would be proper, considering that the of consumers which the company may be serving. To limit the right of the any to make recovery for a limited period of three months or six months as se may be in the absence of an express bar of recovery for a period beyond months or six months, would defeat the object of the Act and the right; of generating company. A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B. Laxmi assistant Divisional Engineer (OP), Northern Power Distribution Co. of A. P. and anr, 2004(1) ALD 546 was considering a similar issue. The learned observed that in assessing the value of the energy provisionally as seen sub-section (1) of section 126, the Assessing Officer has to do his assessment to the best of his judgment. The power of the Assessing Officer is not controlled or circumscribed by sub-section (5). Sub-section (5) of section 126 as: above, takes care of an altogether different situation. It contains a deeming provision, a presumption. The power of the Assessing Officer is not controlled or circumscribed by sub-section (5). Sub-section (5) of section 126 as: above, takes care of an altogether different situation. It contains a deeming provision, a presumption. If the assessing officer has no proper material or pilferage of energy is of such nature that the assessing officer cannot reasonably , period during which there has been unauthorised use of electricity, in such I , he can presume that there has been continuous unauthorised use of energy period of six months or three months as the case may be. The presumption contained in sub-section (5) does not in any manner prevent or prohibit the sing officer while provisionally assessing the electricity charges payable by person under sub-section (1) of section 126 of determining actual energy for period of six months or there has been unathoruised use of energy for a period of six months or there months as the case may be. We are in agreement with that part of the judgment which deals detection of pilferage and consequent presumption. But we are unable to a with the view that the Assessing Officer can pass an order for more than there months or six months. If the power was not limited to threes months, there was no question of permitting the person, occupier or possess rebut the presumption only for three months or six months. Such rebuttal ought to have been for the entire period for which the Assessing Officer arrive at a conclusion that there was unauthorised use. Further the Assess under section 126(6) has to be made at a rate equal to one and a half time tariff applicable to the relevant category of services specified in sub-section for that period. We are also of the opinion that though there is a bar in Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction in submitting provisional bill for period of more than three or six months as the case may be, there is no bar is Civil Court entertaining a suit as set out earlier. The first issue is answer accordingly. 7. We then come to the second issue as to whether it is only the assessing officer as set out in section 126, who alone can inspect the premises and than provisional assessment can only be made based on the investigation done Assessing Officer. The first issue is answer accordingly. 7. We then come to the second issue as to whether it is only the assessing officer as set out in section 126, who alone can inspect the premises and than provisional assessment can only be made based on the investigation done Assessing Officer. It is no doubt true that section 126 on the first blush literally read means that inspection must be done by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer in the explanation to section 126, means the officer of the Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such State Government. If we take this view, then it is only those office designated by the State Government who alone based on their per inspection can make an order of provisional assessment. The other view which possible is that the Assessing Officer himself need not do the inspection, but inspection can be carried out by any other authorised person under the Act. Assessing Officer, however, seeks to rely on the inspection report prepare such other authorised person, than the Assessing officer, though can m provisional assessment, will have to direct the company to support provisional assessment by evidence that there has been unauthorised use of electricity for the presumption to be created under section 126(5). The person other than Assessing officer who carries out the inspection, apart from the report the genuineness of the said evidence and or report, if the person, occupies possessor of the premises or place seeks such an opportunity. Under section 13 it is open to the State Government to authorise any officer to enter, ins break open and search any place or premises where electricity has been being used unauthorizedly, and or search and seize and remove all devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has or is being used unauthorised. As it is therefore, open to persons other those notified under section 126 to carry out an inspection in terms of s 135(2). Courts while considering the provisions of the Act must take consideration the object of the enactment. As it is therefore, open to persons other those notified under section 126 to carry out an inspection in terms of s 135(2). Courts while considering the provisions of the Act must take consideration the object of the enactment. Considering the large num consumers the company serves and the need for the generating company recover from persons who make unauthorised use of electricity, their legal It will, therefore, be possible to read section 126 to mean that the assessing officers need not restrict himself to the inspection carried out personality by the Assessing officers as notified in the explanation section 126, but can rely on the record and inspection carried out by an officer authorized under ection 135(2) of the Act in the discharge of his duties. The only limitation as set out by he would be that in such a case, the report prepared by such other officer will have to be made available to the consumer and its value will have to be proved by the generating company by allowing such other authorised officer to be examined by the assessee if the assessee (sic). In these circumstances, in our opinion, to give effect to the object of, it is possible to read into section 126(1) that apart from the Assessing, the inspection carried out by an Officer authorised by the State Government under section 135(2) can also be the basis for making a provisional under section 126(1) of the Act. 8. Having answered the issue of law, in our opinion, considering the contentions on merits, raised by the petitioner herein, the impugned order is set and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer, to start the process, from the point of service of the provisional assessment already made. The dent No.2 within twelve weeks from today, would be entitled to file his before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer will thereafter pass private orders according to Law. 9.In the light of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority and Assessing Officer is set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. It will be open to the respondents to file their reply before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer thereafter to proceed according to law and pass appropriate orders. (iii) Rule made partly absolute accordingly. Order accordingly.