JUDGMENT JYOTI SARAN, J. 1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has prayed for quashing of the letter bearing No. 558 dated 17.10.2014 issued by the respondent Electrical Executive Engineer as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition whereby a bill for Rs. 6,88,702/- has been raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The bill is for unauthorized use of energy by the petitioner for the period 10.4.2014 to 13.7.2014. 2. The petitioner amongst other reliefs has also prayed for adjustment of the amount of Rs. 4, 18, 534/- deposited against the bill dated 11.4.2014 as contained in Annexure-5A. 3. Mr. Suraj Samdarshi has appeared for the petitioner while the respondents are represented by Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha. 4. Mr. Samdarshi giving a brief of sequence of events has submitted that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Glass, B.C.C. Conductor, Super Enamel etc. and had initially obtained the electrical connection for a sanctioned load of 90 HP under the LTI Category bearing I.D. No. 2421222 and account No. MN- 6374. An application was made by the petitioner for enhancement of load on 26.7.2013 from 90 HP to 400 KVA under HT Category and which was sanctioned on 26.8.2013 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner was required to deposit a security of Rs. 11,14,780/- by demand draft and was also required to ensure compliance of certain requirements mentioned in the order granting sanction of the Electrical Superintending Engineer placed at Annexure-2. The petitioner furnished the security vide demand draft dated 12.2.2014 and which is manifest from the receipt issued by the respondents dated 14.3.2014 placed at Annexure-4. In between, the meter of the petitioner went out of order and following an inspection held on 12.3.2014, the line was restored after by passing the meter. The inspection report is placed at Annexure-3. A second inspection took place on 10.4.2014 and the report is placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The inspection report was followed by a letter of the Electrical Executive Engineer dated 11.4.2014 charging the petitioner of using load beyond the sanctioned capacity and thus causing revenue loss of Rs. 4,18, 534/-. The inspection report is placed at Annexure-3. A second inspection took place on 10.4.2014 and the report is placed at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The inspection report was followed by a letter of the Electrical Executive Engineer dated 11.4.2014 charging the petitioner of using load beyond the sanctioned capacity and thus causing revenue loss of Rs. 4,18, 534/-. The petitioner charged with violation under Section 126 of the Act was directed to make payment within 15 days and which was paid by the petitioner under protest as is manifest from Annexure-6. The Electrical Executive Engineer vide Memo No. 370 dated 18.4.2014 directed the Assistant Electrical Engineer to energize the HT connection for a sanctioned load of 400 KVA HTS I on 11 KV System following the agreement executed between the parties. The letter of the Electrical Executive Engineer is placed at Annexure-7 and which was followed by the impugned letter of the Assistant Electrical Engineer raising a demand under Section 126 of the Act for Rs. 6,88,702/- for the period 10.4.2014 to 13.7.2014 which apparently is the date on which the energisation of the load of the petitioner under the HT category took place which is reflected from the bill dated 3.9.2014 which forms part of Annexure-9 series. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court. 5. Two issues have been raised by Mr. Samdarshi to question the impugned bill namely: (a) That the provisions of Section 126 of the Act would not be applicable where an application for enhancement of load has already been filed and is pending finalization. (b) Since the energisation of the enhanced load under the HT category took place on 13.7.2014 hence prior thereto the petitioner continued under the LTI Category and the tariff order 2013-14 in so far as the provisions relatable to LTI Category is concerned, does not prescribe for billing as per the transformer capacity which form of billing is only present under the HT Category. 6. Mr. Samdarshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while canvassing the issues so raised, has submitted that the facts are not in dispute and an application admittedly had been filed by the petitioner for enhancement of load to 400 KVA on 26.7.2013 which request was accepted vide Annexure 2 on 26.8.2013 and whereafter only formalities had to be completed. He submits that even the security of Rs. He submits that even the security of Rs. 11,14,780/- was deposited by draft dated 12.2.2014 for which receipt was issued on 14.3.2014. He submits that in such circumstances where process for enhancement of load had been initiated and security had been deposited and even an inspection was held on 10.4.2014 which though taking note of the load available with the petitioner, yet reported that the connected load was within the sanctioned load of 90 HP, there was no issue of any unauthorized use of electricity nor the petitioner was drawing a load higher than the sanctioned load. He submits that despite this position yet the petitioner was charged vide letter dated 11.4.2014 of unauthorized use and a demand was raised under Section 126 of the Act which was paid by the petitioner under protest and being emboldened that the respondents have raised the impugned bill against for the period subsequent thereto and until the energisation of the load in the HT Category on 13.7.2014. 7. Mr. Samdarshi submits that neither on facts there is any evidence available to charge the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act nor the respondents can charge the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act in view of the clear stipulation under Clause 7.8(v) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 which clearly provides that no case of unauthorized use of energy shall be booked after a consumer has applied for change in category. 8. Mr. Samdarshi in support of the second issue raised has submitted that tariff order 2013-14 in so far as the terms and conditions of Low Tension Tariff Category is concerned, nowhere provides for a transformer capacity although such provision is manifestly present at Clause-7 of the terms and conditions of HT Consumer. He thus submits that until such time that the line of the petitioner was energized under the HT Category on 13.7.2014, he continued to be within the LTI Category and thus the billing on the basis of transformer capacity in absence of any categorical finding to that effect is contrary to the statutory provisions. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Krishna Govind Agrawal vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 2014 (1) PLJR 284 . 9. Mr. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Krishna Govind Agrawal vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 2014 (1) PLJR 284 . 9. Mr. Samdarshi has further submitted that the illegality has been perpetuated in as much as the respondents have gone ahead with disconnection of his electrical line of the petitioner on 16.2.2015 and thus each passing day is a business loss for the petitioner. 10. The arguments of Mr. Samdarshi has been vehemently contested by Mr. Ojha to submit that it is wholly on account of the laches of the petitioner that the energisation of the enhanced load could be made after a gross delay. He submits that even when the letter dated 26.8.2013 present at Annexure-2 required the petitioner to complete the formalities within 15 days but he avoided to do so and delayed the matter unnecessarily for 8 months when the formalities were completed and agreement was executed for enhanced load which fact finds mention in the letter dated 18.4.2014 of the Electrical Executive Engineer present at Annexure-7. He submits that during all this period the petitioner continued to utilize load beyond sanctioned capacity and it is on this account that he was billed for the period until 10.4.2014 vide Annexure-5/A and for the period subsequent thereto until the energisation of the load on 13.7.2014 vide letter dated 17.10.2014 of the Assistant Electrical Engineer present at Annexure-8. 11. The sum and substance of argument of Mr. Ojha is that since it is the petitioner who has delayed the energisation of enhanced load for all the eight months by not taking appropriate steps for completion of formalities and since the petitioner was drawing electricity beyond the sanctioned load of 90 HP under the LTI Category hence the bills for the loss caused to the respondent Company during such period was raised vide Annexures-5/A and 8 and which is fully supported by the statutory provisions. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 13. The facts are not in dispute. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 13. The facts are not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the delay by the petitioner in completion of formalities ipso facto would be sufficient for issuance of punitive bill under Section 126 of the Act and/or whether there were materials present supporting the charge of drawal of a higher load by the petitioner during the interregnum period between the filing of the application for enhancement of load from 90 HP to 400 KVA on 26. 7.2013 until its energisation on 13.7.2014 and lastly whether the tariff order permits the respondents to raise bill of a LTI consumer on transformer capacity. 14. Clause 7.8 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to change of category and in its Clause (i) the category of a consumer has been defined to mean the tariff schedule under which he is billed as per the latest tariff order. 15. Clause (ii) thereof provides that if sanction to the new category is not permitted under any law, the licensee shall inform the consumer within 15 days from the date of acceptance of his application. 16. Clause (iii) casts an obligation on the licensee to inspect the premises and verify as also to change the category within the time limit specified under the Standard of Performance of Distribution Licensee Regulations from the date of receipt of application. 17. Clause (iv) provides that the change of category would become effective from the next billing cycle. 18. Clause (v) would be very relevant for consideration of the issue in question and runs as follows: “No case of unauthorized use of energy shall be booked by the Licensee if detected after the consumer had applied for change of category and change is legally permissible” 19. Clause (vi) provides that the application would be treated as fresh application and all the formalities would require to be completed and Clause (vii) relates to Government residential quarters. 20. Clause (vi) provides that the application would be treated as fresh application and all the formalities would require to be completed and Clause (vii) relates to Government residential quarters. 20. A bare perusal of the stipulations underlying Clause 7.8 of the Supply Code reflects that the onus is entirely fixed upon the licensee to either accept or to reject an application for change of category but Clause (v) thereof makes it very expressive that in no circumstance any consumer who has applied for change in category, can be booked for unauthorized use of energy where he is entitled to such change. That the energisation has taken place on 13.7.2014 putting the petitioner in the HT category, it is undisputed that the change of category was legally permissible to the petitioner. In such circumstance a mere delay in completion of procedural requirements would in my opinion and in absence of surrounding circumstances ipso facto not vest any jurisdiction in the licensee to charge such consumer applicant for unauthorized use of energy during the period between the filing of application for change in category and energisation thereof. 21. Whereas it is the stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit as also canvassed by Mr. Ojha that the delay was entirely attributable to the petitioner but then for such lapse, his application for change in category, was never rejected rather was processed. In fact even when the petitioner deposited the security amount on 12.2.2014, it took more than a month for the licensee to issue a receipt thereof on 14.3.2014 and another month to carry out the inspection on 10.4.2014 and when the connected load was found to be within the sanctioned load of 90 HP as is manifest from the inspection report present at Annexure-5. 22. The report though also discusses the load available in the two sheds of the petitioner but the said load was not found connected rather the inspection report categorically and very specifically mentions that the connected load of the petitioner was within the sanctioned load of 90 HP. 22. The report though also discusses the load available in the two sheds of the petitioner but the said load was not found connected rather the inspection report categorically and very specifically mentions that the connected load of the petitioner was within the sanctioned load of 90 HP. One fails to understand that in view of the clear stipulation present at Clause 7.8 (v) of the Supply Code and in view of the factual finding in the inspection report present at Annexure-5 confirming that the connected load of the petitioner was within the sanctioned load, in what circumstances did the Electrical Executive Engineer raise a punitive bill on 11.4.2014 charging the petitioner of using a higher load than the sanctioned load. 23. In the opinion of this Court neither Clause 7.8 (v) of the Supply Code permitted the Electrical Executive Engineer to raise any punitive bill under Section 126 of the Act nor the inspection report present at Annexure-5 reports any unauthorized usage by the petitioner and there is no other material on record to support the action of the respondents for raising a punitive bill under Section 126 of the Act. 24. The shoddy counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents discusses no statutory provisions which would vest jurisdiction in the respondents to raise a punitive bill in such circumstances. In fact except singing the tune of delay, neither any provision have been referred to nor have the respondents enclosed any chit of paper to support the charge of unauthorized use of energy by the petitioner. 25. In so far as the other issue raised by Mr. Samdarshi regarding the bill on transformer capacity is concerned, I am of the opinion that the undisputed fact is that the change in category of the petitioner took place only on 13.7.2014 and prior thereto he continued to be in LTI category. The tariff order 2013-14 in so far as it makes reference to the terms and conditions of LTI consumer no where provides for a transformer capacity though such provision is present in the terms and conditions of an HT consumer. In such circumstance, the argument of Mr. The tariff order 2013-14 in so far as it makes reference to the terms and conditions of LTI consumer no where provides for a transformer capacity though such provision is present in the terms and conditions of an HT consumer. In such circumstance, the argument of Mr. Samdarshi that the billing can only take place as per the tariff order and since the tariff order no where provides a billing of an LTI consumer as per the transformer capacity, the impugned bills issued on such basis are unsustainable, is sound and is upheld. 26. For the conclusions drawn by me hereinabove, I would not detain myself any further to hold that the bill raised by the respondents under Section 126 of the Act on 11.4.2014 as contained in Annexure-5A followed by the bill dated 17.10.2014 present at Annexure-8 issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer and the Assistant Electrical Engineer respectively are neither supported factual finding nor are supported by statutory provisions and thus cannot be sustained. 27. In result the bills raised under Section 126 of the Act vide letter bearing No. 348 dated 11.4.2014 of the Electrical Executive Engineer as contained in Annexure-5A and vide letter bearing No. 558 dated 17.10.2014 issued by the respondent Assistant Electrical Engineer as contained in Annexure 8 cannot be upheld and are set aside. 28. The writ petition is allowed. 29. The amounts deposited by the petitioner against the said bills shall be adjusted by the respondent Company against his future bills. Since the line of the petitioner stands disconnected for non payment of the bill impugned herein, hence the respondents are directed to restore the same within 48 hours of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.