JUDGMENT : Exhibit P10 order of the 2nd respondent appellate authority, issued under S.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is an industrial consumer provided with a High Tension (HT) connection, on the basis of Ext.P1 agreement. Based on an inspection conducted at the premises on 17.2.2005, Ext.P3 penal bill was issued along with Ext.P4 notice, alleging detection of unauthorized connected load of 156 KVA. Challenging Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner had approached this court in W.P.(C) No.8923/2005. Meanwhile, monthly bill for March 2005 was also issued imposing penalty, which was also challenged in W.P.(C) No.13946/2005. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of through Ext.P6 common judgment, relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. This court specifically observed that, the appellate authority will consider the contention of the petitioner that there is distinction between 'connected load' and 'contract demand' and hence the penalty is not sustainable. Finding that the petitioner had already remitted 50% of the amount assessed on the basis of an interim order passed by this court, realisation of balance amount was stayed pending disposal of the appeal. 2. Appeal filed consequent to Ext.P6 judgment was dismissed through Ext.P8. The appellate authority found that, in view of agreement executed by the petitioner for 300 KVA of contract demand, it was not permissible to add or change any electrical machinery without concurrence from the authorities of the Electricity Board and from the Electrical Inspectorate. Finding that the petitioner had added 156 KVA load without getting sanction, the additional load detected has to be treated as unauthorised, which is liable to be penalised until regularised or removed. 3. Exhibit P8 order was again challenged before this court in a Writ Petition. In Ext.P9 judgment this court observed that, the specific contention raised by the petitioner based on provisions contained in Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. Contention of the petitioner was that, the 'contract demand' had never exceeded and hence they are not liable to be penalized under Regulation 42 (d). Therefore Exhibit P8 was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal. 4. Exhibit P10 is the consequential order issued. Contention of the petitioner was that, the 'contract demand' had never exceeded and hence they are not liable to be penalized under Regulation 42 (d). Therefore Exhibit P8 was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal. 4. Exhibit P10 is the consequential order issued. The appellate authority had referred to Regulation 11(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 and Regulation 12(1) of K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, which insist that before connecting any electrical equipment it should be subject to inspection and approval by the Board's authorities and before the wiring or installation of apparatus, approval in writing from the Electrical Inspectorate should be obtained under Rule 63. Finding that the pre-condition of getting approval before installation of the additional machinery was not obtained, it is held that the additional installation exceeding the 'connected load' detected was unauthorised and liable to be penalised. The appellate authority found that the sanctioned connected load was 369 KVA only and on inspection it was detected that the petitioner had installed unauthorised load of 157 KVA, over and above the 369 KVA, without observing statutory provisions and without remitting the required charges to the K.S.E.B. Hence the assessment of penalty was upheld. The petitioner is challenging the findings in Ext.P10, in this Writ Petition. 5. Exhibit P10 is assailed on various grounds. Regulation 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 provides that, if the consumer exceeds the 'contract load' without prior permission of the Board or if the energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used without knowledge and approval of the Board for a different purpose not contemplated under the contract, for which a higher tariff is applicable, misuse of energy can be billed at 3 times at the rate applicable to the respective tariff, for a previous period of 6 months. It is pointed out that the 'contracted load' in this case had never exceeded the permissible (sanctioned) limit. The recorded 'maximum demand' for the relevant period was illustrated in the Writ Petition through Ext.P5 series monthly bills. Therefore it is contended that imposition of penalty under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 cannot be sustained. 6. The recorded 'maximum demand' for the relevant period was illustrated in the Writ Petition through Ext.P5 series monthly bills. Therefore it is contended that imposition of penalty under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 cannot be sustained. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board had pointed out that the unauthorised additional connected load was detected on a date on which the Electricity Act, 2003 has came into force. Therefore the penalty imposed need to be construed as one under Section 126 of the Act. But it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, even assuming that Section 126 is applicable, there was no unauthorised use of electricity detected, warranting assessment of penalty under Section 126 of the Act. 7. The term “unauthorised use of electricity” is explained under Section 126(6)(b) of the Act. It includes usage of electricity by any artificial means or by any means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee. Question to be considered is as to whether there was any usage of electricity which was not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee. The petitioner points out that, with respect to installation of the additional machinery they have obtained approval from the Electrical Inspectorate. The above fact is admitted in the counter affidavit also. In the impugned order, the penalty was imposed only for the period after the date of approval granted by the Electrical Inspectorate, on the presumption that the additional machineries were installed only on that date. Sri. Ziyad Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of approval granted from the Electrical Inspectorate, there was no unauthorised use of electricity. It is pointed out that the Electrical Inspector is an “authority” coming within the purview of sub-clause (ii) of Section 126(6)(b). The term 'authority' as defined under the Act is the 'Central Electrical Authority' referred in Section 70(1). Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956, as well as the relevant Regulations in the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010, insist upon approval by the Electrical Inspectorate, before connecting any electrical installation in an HT connection. Therefore once the installation is approved by the Electrical Inspectorate, there is authorisation by an 'authority' under the Act. Hence 'unauthorised usage' cannot be alleged, is the contention. 8. Sri. Therefore once the installation is approved by the Electrical Inspectorate, there is authorisation by an 'authority' under the Act. Hence 'unauthorised usage' cannot be alleged, is the contention. 8. Sri. P. Santhalingam, learned senior counsel for the Board contended that, any usage of electricity which will violate the terms and conditions agreed upon for supply of energy, will amount to unauthorised usage. Clause 14(b) contained in Ext.P1 agreement provides that, the consumer shall not make any alteration on the machinery/equipment either by way of addition, substitution or transfer, which is liable to increase obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed 'contract demand' and/or which may affect the supply system of the Board to its detriment. It further stipulates that in any event the consumer shall notify the Board about the intended alterations, additions, substitutions or transfers and should obtain prior approval of the Board in writing before execution of any such action. Sub-clause (c) of clause 14 says that, when no such approval is obtained, the Board will be entitled to cut off supply of the consumer. Various other Regulations contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy 1990 also insist upon such approval of the Board. Hence it is contended that usage of electricity by any means which had no approval of the Board, will amount to unauthorised usage and is liable to be penalised. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, Section 126(6)(b)(ii) insist authorisation from any competent person or authority or licencee. The authorisation is required only from anyone among, 'competent person' or 'authority' or ' licencee'. Hence even assuming that no approval of the Board was obtained, the consequential steps which can be taken is only to cut off supply as provided in clause 14(c) of the agreement and imposition of penalty under Section 126 cannot be sustained, as long as there is approval granted by the “authority”. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Board contended that, any violation of the Act, Regulations or terms and conditions of the agreement for supply will amount to unauthorised use. It is contended that the unauthorised use of electricity cannot be restricted only to those explanations illustrated under Section 126(6), but it has to be given a wider meaning. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Board contended that, any violation of the Act, Regulations or terms and conditions of the agreement for supply will amount to unauthorised use. It is contended that the unauthorised use of electricity cannot be restricted only to those explanations illustrated under Section 126(6), but it has to be given a wider meaning. In support of the above proposition he had relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. & Anr. v. Sri. Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108 . On facts it was a case where an HT consumer had exceeded the 'contract demand'. In the said decision it was observed that, clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section 6 (b) of Section 126 are only illustrative of the circumstances of “unauthorised use” and it cannot be construed as exhaustive. The unauthorized use of electricity would mean what is stated in those explanations as well as other unauthorised user, which is squarely in violation of the statutory or contractual provisions. Therefore it is held that the unauthorised use of electricity cannot be restricted to the illustrative explanations contained in Section 126(6). Unauthorised use of electricity itself is an expression which would on its plain reading takes within its scope all the misuse of electricity or malpractices adopted while using electricity. Therefore it is difficult to restrict unauthorised use and to limit its application with regard to the categories mentioned in the explanation to Section 126(6), is the observation. 11. The crucial question to be decided is as to whether there was violation of any Regulations or any of the terms and conditions of agreement for supply. Regulation 11(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 insists upon that before connecting any electrical equipment to the system in the case of HT consumer, the same shall be subjected to inspection and approval from the Board's authority, without which connection cannot be made. It also insists upon approval of the Electrical Inspectorate to be obtained in the case of HT and LT consumers. It also insists upon approval of the Electrical Inspectorate to be obtained in the case of HT and LT consumers. Clause 14(b) of Ext.P1 agreement restricts the consumer from making any alteration on the machinery by way of addition or substitution or transfer which is liable to increase the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed 'contract demand' and/or which may affect the supply system of the Board to its detriment. It also insists for getting prior approval of the Board before execution of any such alteration or substitution or transfer. Contention of the petitioner is that, the additional installation now made will not increase obligation on the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand. He had illustrated the consumption with respect to the period after installation of the additional machinery which will indicate that the maximum demand recorded had never exceeded 300 KVA. According to him, even if the additional machinery is operated it may not exceed the 'contract demand'. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner was not at an obligation to get approval of the Board. It is to be noted that Regulation 14(b) insists that in any event the consumer should notify the Board about his intention with respect to alteration or substitution of the machineries and should obtain prior approval of the Board. Therefore it is to be found that there was no authorisation obtained from the Board with respect to usage of the additional machinery installed. 12. But, still the question remains as to whether such lack of approval will entitle imposition of penalty, either under Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. Consequences of violation of Clause 14 (b) is specifically provided in the agreement itself under Clause 14(c), which is by way of disconnection of supply. Imposition of penalty can only be when there is 'unauthorised usage' of electricity detected. Even going by the dictum contained in Seetaram Rice Mill's case (cited supra) it cannot be held that, there was unauthorised usage, because the Board has no case that the additional machinery installed had resulted in exceeding the 'contract demand'. It is also not proved that it has created and additional obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed 'contract demand'. 13. It is also not proved that it has created and additional obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed 'contract demand'. 13. In this regard it is beneficial to have a scanning of the provisions of the new Regulations which are framed pursuant to the 2003 Act. In Regulation 50(1) of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 it is provided that, unauthorised additional load in the case of LT/HT/EHT consumers shall be penalised as per provisions contained in regulation 50(5) and (6), treating the same as misuse of energy. But such a regulation enabling assessment of penalty on the allegation of detection of additional load in the case of HT/LT/EHT consumers, is totally lacking either in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy 1990 or in the 2003 Act. In the case at hand the new Regulation, K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 was not in force at the time of inspection. Therefore, in a case where there is detection of additional connected load in an HT consumer during the period prior to introduction of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, without exceeding the contract demand, which has got approval from an authority no penalty can be imposed. It may at the most warrants action to the extent of disconnection of supply, or imposition of additional charges as contemplated in the terms of the agreement for supply. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the legal contentions raised by the petitioner against imposition of penalty is to be upheld. However, I make it clear that the respondents will be at liberty to initiate steps for imposition of penalty, if any such additional unauthorised connected load continued in the premises. 14. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Writ Psetition is allowed. Imposition of penalty on the basis of inspection conducted on 17.2.2005, which is confirmed through Ext.P10 appellate order is hereby quashed. 15. Payment if any already made by the petitioner shall be adjusted against future bills. However it is made clear that the amounts liable for such refund/adjustment will not carry any interest.