JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P13 to P16 bills issued in consequence to Ext.P11 appellate order. The petitioner challenge Exts.P9 order of the Assistant Engineer and Ext.P11 order of the Appellate Authority. 2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner along with his wife owned a multi-storeyed building, which had two electrical connections. In the fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building, there was a lodge carried on, which had a connected sanctioned load of 11 KW, which was covered by consumer No.9462. The other floors had a dental clinic, which had a connected load of 9 KW and covered by consumer No.21228. Consumer No.9462 was under tariff LT VII A and the dental clinic having consumer No.21228 was under tariff LT VI B. 3. An inspection was conducted in the premises on 26.12.2007. The mahazar is seen at Ext.P1. On inspection it was detected that consumer No.9462 was connected with an excess connected load of 9KW and consumer No.21228, with an excess connected load of 11.2 KW, the latter of which was for reason of two lifts having been connected to the said premises. Though the lifts were provided for the lodge, it was connected to the power connection provided to the dental clinic. The petitioner was issued with a provisional bill, based on which an assessment was made, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority, which order was remanded as per Ext.P8. The subsequent proceedings at Exts.P9 and P11 and the issuance of the bills at Exts.P13 to P16 are challenged in the above writ petition. 4. Exts.P13 and P15 are subsequent to and a consequence of the appellate order, as has been noticed in the said bills, by the endorsement 'Final Bill as per proceedings of Dy. C.E., E/e. Circle, Alappuzha'. The bills at Exts.P14 and P16 are indicated as 'Final Bill', which is a consequence of the petitioner having not disconnected the additional load nor applied for regularisation. 5. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that Exts.P14 and P16 cannot be sustained, since the petitioner was paying the bills during the period in which the proceedings were pending before the various authorities and the disconnection had to be made by the Board and not the petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that Exts.P14 and P16 cannot be sustained, since the petitioner was paying the bills during the period in which the proceedings were pending before the various authorities and the disconnection had to be made by the Board and not the petitioner. The petitioner also has challenged Ext.P11 order and Exts.P13 and P15, which are bills issued for the prior period of twelve months from the month of inspection under Section 126 of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003. 6. The inspection was not vitiated by any procedural irregularity and the excess load detected stands proved and the bills issued based on the same cannot be faulted. The further proceedings also indicate that there is no contention raised as to the excess connected load detected, not having been used in the premises at that point. In such circumstance, there could be no challenge raised against Exts.P13 and P15 bills, which assessed the amounts payable for the 12 month period, prior to the inspection, by the petitioner for consumer Nos: 9462 and 21228, on the basis of the excess load detected, which was reckoned as unauthorized load. The challenge to that extent stands negatived. 7. The further contention is with respect to the final bills issued for the period of 1/2008 to 6/2013 in consumer No.9462, as is evidenced from Ext.P14 and consumer No.21228 being Ext.P16 for the period 1/2008 to 12/2012. The learned Senior Counsel would refer to Regulation 51 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, by which according to him; on detection of any unauthorized additional load, it is the duty of the Board to disconnect the connection to the premises, if the consumer does not disconnect the additional load or file an application for regularization. Sub-regulation (5) is also relied upon to contend that there is a mandate insofar as the disconnection to be effected by the Board when there is no disconnection effected of the unauthorized additional load or the consumer having not filed an application for regularization. 8. To better understand the contention, it is necessary that Regulation 51 be extracted: "51. Sub-regulation (5) is also relied upon to contend that there is a mandate insofar as the disconnection to be effected by the Board when there is no disconnection effected of the unauthorized additional load or the consumer having not filed an application for regularization. 8. To better understand the contention, it is necessary that Regulation 51 be extracted: "51. Unauthorized load - Where a Low Tension Consumer exceeds the connected load and/or resorts to unauthorized additional load and if the connected load exceeds 100 KVA, the unauthorized additional load shall be disconnected by the consumer within twenty-four hours of detection of the unauthorized load by the Board's officers or take action to regularize the unauthorized additional load. If he fails to disconnect the unauthorized load within the time stipulated, the power supply to the premises shall be disconnected after the expiry of twenty-four hours. A notice to this effect shall be issued to the consumer by the Board's officer immediately on detection of the unauthorized additional load." Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 51 need not be looked into since it is applicable to HT & EHT and the petitioner's connections are both LT. 9. A reading of the aforesaid regulation would indicate that on detection of the unauthorized additional load, the disconnection is to be made by the consumer, within twenty-fours of detection of the unauthorized load by the Board's officer or take action to regularize the unauthorized additional load. If no such disconnection has been made, the Board has the power to disconnect the electricity connection after expiry of twenty-four hours. The specific words employed in the Regulation is that the 'unauthorized additional load shall be got disconnected by the consumer, within twenty-four hours of detection of the unauthorized load' by the Board's officer. 10. Hence the disconnection has to be made by the consumer and the same also has to be informed to the Board and if no such information is passed on to the Board or action taken to regularize the unauthorized additional load, necessarily the Board would be entitled to disconnect the connection and further bill the consumer as per the unauthorized additional load. True the Board has the power to disconnect the electricity connection if the consumer fails to disconnect the unauthorized load within the time stipulated. True the Board has the power to disconnect the electricity connection if the consumer fails to disconnect the unauthorized load within the time stipulated. Even if the Board does not disconnect the connection after twenty-four hours, it cannot be said that on such disconnection not being effected the petitioner could take advantage of such negligence on the part of the Board officials. The contention taken is that after the inspection, if the consumer does not disconnect the unauthorized load, there can be no permission for using unauthorized load and in the event of failure on the part of the consumer to make such disconnection the Board shall disconnect the connection. If that is not done then the consumer could continue with the use of power uninterruptedly even with respect to the detected unauthorized load is a proposition; which is difficult to be accepted. 11. It is in this context that this Court observed earlier also that the negligence on the part of the Board cannot lead to an advantage being taken by the consumer who has failed to disconnect the load. Viewed in that perspective the contention of the petitioner before the original authority and the appellate authority is relevant. In Ext.P9 it was contended before the authority that one of the lifts connected to consumer No.21228, which was taken to be unauthorized, was later connected to consumer No. 9462. It was also contended that the connection made to consumer No.21228 was due to inadvertence and that the second lift was totally damaged and was unused. Before the appellate authority a contention raised was that the calculation of the unauthorized additional load in connection with the premises at consumer No.21228 is not correct since the details of the load connected to consumer No. 9462 also included a lift having a capacity of 5600 Watts. It was also contended that the lift was equipped in the year 1986 and at that time the electricity connection bearing consumer No.21228 was not in existence. The contention raised was also that the allegation of the two lifts having capacity of 5.6 KW each were connected to consumer No.9462 is false and that there was only one lift connected to the said consumer number. The inconsistent stance taken before the two authorities belie the contentions of the petitioner and also lends credence to the further bills issued for the latter period. 12. The inconsistent stance taken before the two authorities belie the contentions of the petitioner and also lends credence to the further bills issued for the latter period. 12. There can be no dispute that on inspection, on 24.12.2007, it was detected that both the lifts were connected to consumer No.21228 and they were also in working condition. The lift having been installed in 1986 when consumer No. 21228 was not in existence, is irrelevant since obviously at the time of inspection, both the lifts had already been installed and were connected to that consumer number. The further contention taken by the petitioner that one of the lifts was not in a working condition is specifically found against, in the mahazar itself, which assessed the connected load with respect to both the lifts as unauthorized load for the same having not been sanctioned by the Board. The petitioner, does not, at all, have a contention that after inspection the lifts were dismantled. Again the contention of the petitioner was that after inspection the working lift was connected to the connection available to the lodge. Here it is to be noticed that the other consumer number too was determined with an unauthorized load and even one lift would have added to the already excess load. Hence the petitioner could not have continued the connection after the inspection, without filing an application for regularization of the unauthorized load. The Board had the power to disconnect, but the failure to do so would not clothe the petitioner with the right to carry on the connection with the unauthorized load; which obviously is an illegality. 13. The admitted position is that there was unauthorized load detected in both the connections at the time of inspection; which cannot be interfered with. The petitioner even after the inspection and issuance of penal bills continued with the connection as such; since nowhere the petitioner pleads that disconnection of the excess load was effected. The Board too failed to effect disconnection; in all probability due to the pending proceedings. The petitioner also did not submit any application for regularization. The presumption that the petitioner continued with the unauthorized load hence is a very valid ground on which the bills are issued. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed at ExtP11 or with the bills issued at Exts.P14 to P16. 14. The petitioner also did not submit any application for regularization. The presumption that the petitioner continued with the unauthorized load hence is a very valid ground on which the bills are issued. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed at ExtP11 or with the bills issued at Exts.P14 to P16. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that subsequently a new proposal was submitted for the entire building, which has been approved by the Electrical Inspector as per Exts.P17. The dismissal of the writ petition or the liability mulcted on the petitioner need not in any manner affect the subsequent sanction granted by the Electrical Inspector at Ext.P17, but, however, the same can be implemented only subject to the payment of the dues in the earlier connections. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.