JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No.30111/2012 is filed challenging finalisation of penalty imposed under S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is confirmed by the appellate authority in Ext.P15 order. An inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) at the premises where the electric connection was provided under LT VIIA tariff for construction purposes. On detecting that the petitioner had unauthorisedly extended the connection to 4 residential buildings (Villas) constructed nearby, where there was residential occupation, penalty as contemplated under S.126 was imposed. After serving a provisional order of assessment and after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner the assessment of penalty was finalised after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Exhibit P11 is the final order of assessment issued. Aggrieved by Ext.P11 the petitioner had approached this court in a Writ Petition. Through Ext.P12 judgment this court relegated the petitioner to seek the remedy of statutory appeal, after depositing necessary amount stipulated as pre-condition. The petitioner challenged Ext.P12 judgment in Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In Ext.P13 judgment this court directed consideration of appeal if any filed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs instead of 50% of the amount assessed. It was made clear that the K.S.E.B. can disconnect supply to all the Villas. It was also observed that, if people are already residing in the Villas, the Board should retain independent connections on compliance with all formalities, so that they are not put to difficulty. The Division Bench further directed that, if the petitioner remits Rs. 2.5 lakhs as directed, recovery of the balance will remain stayed for 3 months and thereafter the recovery will be based on orders which will be passed in appeal. 2. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P13 judgment, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Exhibit P15 is the order passed by the appellate authority. The quantum of penalty was reduced limiting the period of assessment to 80 days preceding the date of inspection, instead of 365 days originally assessed. It is not being satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. In W.P.(C) No.30564/2012 the petitioner is challenging Ext.P17 order issued by the authorised officer imposing penalty for the further periods after the assessment, from 11.7.2012 to 3.12.2012. It is not being satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. In W.P.(C) No.30564/2012 the petitioner is challenging Ext.P17 order issued by the authorised officer imposing penalty for the further periods after the assessment, from 11.7.2012 to 3.12.2012. Penalty was imposed on the premise that, eventhough the petitioner was requested to remove the unauthorised extension with proper intimation to the 2nd respondent, he had failed to comply with such request. It is further pointed out that the 2nd respondent was unable to disconnect the unauthorised extension in view of stay granted in Ext.P13 judgment by the Division Bench. 4. The challenge against Ext.P15 appellate order is mainly on two grounds. It is contended that the imposition of penalty at the rates applicable to LTVIII tariff, is not sustainable. The connection in question was provided under LTVIIA tariff. The unauthorised extension was detected to 4 residential buildings, for domestic usage. Hence the tariff applicable for the purpose for which energy was allegedly misused is a tariff for which lesser rate is applicable. Hence no penalty can be imposed, is the contention. Petitioner relies on Regulation 59 of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 in support of the above contention. But provisions contained in S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 authorises assessment of penalty in case the authorised Officer arrives at a conclusion that the consumer or any other person had indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. Unauthorised use of electricity is defined under S.126(6)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. & Anr. v. Sri. Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 168) held that any usage of electricity which is not authorised under the Act, Rules or Regulations will amount to unauthorised use, for which a penalisation is sustainable. Therefore the contention that the usage was for a purpose for which lesser tariff is applicable, cannot be taken as a ground. 5. According to the petitioner, even if it is assumed that there was detection of unauthorised extension, penalty cannot be imposed at the rates applicable to authorised temporary extensions, under LTVIII tariff. Therefore the contention that the usage was for a purpose for which lesser tariff is applicable, cannot be taken as a ground. 5. According to the petitioner, even if it is assumed that there was detection of unauthorised extension, penalty cannot be imposed at the rates applicable to authorised temporary extensions, under LTVIII tariff. In this regard the petitioner relies on the decisions of this court in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee v. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. ( 2007 (3) KLT 388 ) and Jomy Thomas Manjooran v. K.S.E.B. ( 2013 (1) KLT 595 ). Legal position remains settled to the effect that unauthorised extensions cannot be penalised at the rates applicable to authorised temporary connections under LTVIII tariff. On the other hand, penalty can be imposed at 2 times of the fixed charges for the period during which the unauthorised usage existed along with electricity charges due on the proportionate consumption of energy in the unauthorised additional load. In this case the unauthorised additional load detected was to the extent of 32 KW. By virtue of Ext.P15 order the appellate authority had reduced the period of unauthorised usage as 80 days. Hence the penalty need to be restricted at 2 times of the fixed charges for 32 KW for a period of 80 days at the rate applicable as on the date of inspection and on the energy charges (current charges) due on the proportionate consumption of 32 KW for the said period of 80 days at the rate applicable as on the date of inspection, at one time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the fixation of the period of penalty as 80 days was made without considering the contentions taken based on the materials produced before the appellate authority to show that the occupation of the 4 villas was only for a short period prior to the inspection. This court takes note of the fact that, even from the copy of the 'invitation' with respect to the house warming ceremony, produced by the petitioner, it is evident that there was occupation from May 2012 onwards. Therefore there cannot be much difference with respect to the period for which the penalty is liable to be imposed. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances W.P. (C) No.30111/2012 is disposed of modifying Ext.P15 order limiting the quantum of penalty as per the method of calculation enumerated as above. Therefore there cannot be much difference with respect to the period for which the penalty is liable to be imposed. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances W.P. (C) No.30111/2012 is disposed of modifying Ext.P15 order limiting the quantum of penalty as per the method of calculation enumerated as above. The 3rd respondent is directed to revise the penal bill accordingly. Needles to observe that credit should be given to amounts already deposited against the penal assessment. 8. Challenge in W.P.(C) No. 30564/2012 against the imposition of continued penalty for the periods after the inspection and provisional assessment is mainly based on Exts.P6 to P8 documents. According to the petitioner, when the provisional assessment dated 11.7.2012 was received, he had issued Ext.P6 letter to the 2nd respondent stating that there is no unauthorised extension at present and that the 2nd respondent can inspect the same to get satisfied about it. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 was sent to the 2nd respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due on 16.7.2012 and it was received by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2012. Copy of the postal receipt and acknowledgment card are produced as Exts.P7 & P8. But in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is contended that, no representation requesting removal of unauthorised extension was received. It is mentioned that only Ext.P5 objection was received through speed post. However it is evident from Ext.P17 that the 2nd respondent had issued the demand for payment of penal charges for the period between 11.7.2012 and 3.12.2012, on the premise that the unauthorised extension continued for the said period. At the first instance, imposition of penalty on the allegation of continuance of unauthorised usage is not permissible, unless the Assessing Officer complies with the procedural formalities contemplated under S.126(2) & (3). Learned standing counsel had pointed out that under Regulation 51(2) of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply the Board is entitled to levy penalty for unauthorised additional load until removal of the unauthorised additional load or until regularisation of such load. But the said Regulation cannot be considered as an independent provision, apart from S.126. Imposition of penalty being penal in nature, it is mandatory for the Board to put the consumer with notice of such proposal and to consider his objections. S.126 contemplates a comprehensive procedure in this regard. But the said Regulation cannot be considered as an independent provision, apart from S.126. Imposition of penalty being penal in nature, it is mandatory for the Board to put the consumer with notice of such proposal and to consider his objections. S.126 contemplates a comprehensive procedure in this regard. Therefore even for imposition of penalty on the allegation of continuance of unauthorised usage, the procedure contemplated under 126(2) & (3) are mandatory. 9. On the facts, there exist a dispute as to whether the unauthorised extension continued for any period after the date of inspection or after the date of issuance of the provisional order of assessment. The findings in Ext.P17 is to the extent that the Board was unabled from disconnecting the service because of stay granted by this court. But it is not a reason upon which the penalty can be imposed. Penalty for any continued unauthorised extension can be imposed only if the Assessing Officer is convinced that the unauthorised extension had actually continued during any period after the date of inspection, that too after complying with all the procedure under S.126(2) & (3). Therefore if the 2nd respondent is proposing to impose any penalty for the period after 11.7.2012, he should make a provisional assessment to that effect and shall finalise it only after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that, imposition of such penalty if any can be only to the extent of 2 times of the fixed charges applicable on 32KW unauthorised additional load and to current charges on the proportionate consumption on the additional unauthorised load, for the period during which such authorised extension had actually continued. 10. Therefore W.P.(C) No.30564/2012 is allowed and Ext.P17 is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the 2nd respondent to initiate fresh proceedings if it is proposed to impose penalty on the allegation of continued unauthorised use for any period after 11.7.2012. The imposition of penalty if any proposed shall be finalised by the 2nd respondent within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. A revised penal bill as ordered in W.P.(C) No.30111/2012 should be issued within the above said period. The imposition of penalty if any proposed shall be finalised by the 2nd respondent within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. A revised penal bill as ordered in W.P.(C) No.30111/2012 should be issued within the above said period. Needless to observe that, total remittance made by the petitioner in both these cases shall be appropriated in accordance with outcome of the decision which will be taken in the matter. Refund of excess payment if any shall be made without any further delay.