JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Electricity Act, 2003 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Electrical Inspector in Appeal No.4/2005 dated 20.04.2006 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. 2. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the petitioner, learned advocate, Shri. B.M. Vaishnava for the respondent no.1 and learned AGP Shri Venugopal Patel for the respondent no.2. 3. Learned advocate, Ms. Bhaya referred to the background of the facts and also impugned order at Annexure-A and submitted that it is not in dispute that there is unauthorized consumption or the use of the load. She submitted that as observed, the contract load is 0.6 KW, whereas connected load found at the relevant time was 2.435 KWK instead of 0.6 KW. On the basis thereof, supplementary bill has been issued as per the ABCD formula applicable as per the Supply Code, particularly, Regulation 126 of the Supply Code. However, she submitted that the Electrical Inspector has modified as stated in the impugned order to the actual consumption on prorata basis, which is not permissible. She submitted that the Supply Code is statutory condition or the Regulations, which provides for such formula of ABCD as stated in such Regulation. She has also submitted that the High Court (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J.) vide order dated 08.08.2017 has also in identical petition passed an order that the consumer is required to pay as per the formula and Regulation 7.2, which would be applicable in such cases. She, therefore, submitted that the present petition may be allowed. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Vaishnav for the respondent-consumer, however, referred to the affidavit in reply and tried to join an issue with regard to the manner in which the calculation has been arrived at. He pointedly referred to the provision and submitted that Regulation 126 would not empower the licensee to make assessment as per the formula. He also submitted that the Notification dated 25.09.2006 provides for the assessment to be made in such cases and, therefore, assessment made by the petitioner is erroneous and, therefore, the order passed is just and proper. He pointedly referred to the provision and submitted that Regulation 126 would not empower the licensee to make assessment as per the formula. He also submitted that the Notification dated 25.09.2006 provides for the assessment to be made in such cases and, therefore, assessment made by the petitioner is erroneous and, therefore, the order passed is just and proper. He also referred to the affidavit as well as the observation by the Standing Committee appointed by the Parliament to consider the statutory provision of the Electricity Act as well as Supply Code. He submitted that the use of additional load more than sanction load would be considered as unauthorized use within the meaning of Regulation 126. He, therefore, submitted that order impugned may not be disturbed. 5. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserves consideration. 6. The background of the facts as stated in the impugned order clearly reveal that it is not the case of any malpractice or theft of energy. Therefore the submissions with regard to the bill and the impugned order require closer scrutiny. Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act referred to the investigation and provide, “If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.” 7. Similarly, Regulation 7.2 referred to the “Investigation and provisional assessment”. It refers to ABCD formula for the purpose of assessment. Annexure-B referred to “guidelines for the assessment” (Referred to Section 7.2.4). Therefore Chapter – XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for “Investigation and Enforcement”. The provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act referred to the procedure to be followed. Section 126 of the Electricity Act refers to the unauthorized use of electricity and the procedure to be followed for the assessment in respect of such unauthorized used of energy. However Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act referred to affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of objections filed by the consumer before the final order of assessment could be passed. However Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act referred to affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of objections filed by the consumer before the final order of assessment could be passed. Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act provides that the assessing officer has to reach to the conclusion that the unauthorized use of electricity has taken place. Moreover it further provides that where the period during which such unauthorized use of the electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, the assessment should be made limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. Regulation 7.2 referred to the “Investigation and provisional assessment”, which is statutory regulation. Regulation 7.2 reads as under, “7.2 INVESTIGATION AND PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT 7.2.1 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 to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized 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. 7.2.2 If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. 7.2.3 The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to one and half times the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services. 7.2.4 The assessment under this section shall be worked out in the manner prescribed in the Annexure-B.” 4.1 Annexure-B reads as under, “ANNEXURE – B Guidelines for Assessment (Refer Section7.2.4) 1. In case of LT consumers : The quantity of units consumed per month shall be worked out in the manner prescribed Consumption per month = A x C x D / B Where A is total connected load found at time of inspection. B is diversity factor. C is an average load factor. D is the number of hours in a month. B is diversity factor. C is an average load factor. D is the number of hours in a month. For the assessment of energy consumed, the diversity factors and the average load factors for the various categories of consumers shall be taken as under.” 8. Thus, the procedure is prescribed and ABDC formula is evolved for the purpose of assessment. Therefore, when the petitioner was found having connected load of 2.43 KW as stated in the checking-sheet and the contract load is 0.6 KW, it is unauthorized use or the excess of the energy than the contract load. The submission, which has been made by learned advocate, Shri Vaishnav referring to the manner of the assessment with details about the calculation contending about the procedure has no merit. The petitioner has been served with the communication providing an opportunity to raise objection for the assessment and as it is evident from the communication at Annexure-D, he was also provided an opportunity of hearing before making assessment. Therefore in view of the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act read with the statutory regulation regarding the assessment, the grievance made by the petitioner is not justified. This issue has also been considered by the coordinate bench (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J.) in Special Civil Application No.19573 of 2006 vide order dated 08.08.2017. Therefore, as it has been submitted by learned advocate, Ms.Bhaya that the Notification dated 25.09.2006 will not have any retrospective application, deserves to be accepted. There is another order of the coordinate bench (Coram : Akshay H. Mehta, J.) in Special Civil Application No.2966 of 2007 vide order dated 17.07.2007 However in light of the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act read with statutory regulations as stated above and the fact that the opportunity has been provided to the petitioner in respect of such unauthorized use of energy, the modification made in the impugned order by the Appellate Authority cum Electrical Inspector cannot be sustained. It is required to be noted that the reference to the Standing Committee with regard to the domestic use or the consumption while considering such issue may have to be considered based on the Circular prospectively. Therefore, the impugned order discarding the assessment made on the basis of the ABCD formula cannot be accepted. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Therefore, the impugned order discarding the assessment made on the basis of the ABCD formula cannot be accepted. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 9. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (Southco) & Anr. Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the observation with regard to the purposive interpretation by applying maxims ex visceribus actus and ut res magis valeat quam pereat Rule of practical interpretation has also been made applicable. 10. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed in terms of Para No.13(B). The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority cum Electrical Inspector in Appeal No.4/2005 dated 20.04.2006 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.