JUDGMENT : The petitioner-Castron Technologies Ltd. seeks a direction upon the respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation to give effect to the tariff-order for the financial year 2016-17 which has been issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 18.05.2018; the petitioner has claimed voltage rebate and load factor rebate in the monthly electricity bills in terms of the said tariff-order issued by the Commission. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner has been granted electrical connection in HT category by the respondent-DVC for a contract demand of 3000 KVA. It has been paying energy charges regularly, however, on the basis of an inspection report electricity supply at its premises was arbitrarily disconnected. Disputing the allegation of pilferage and theft of electricity and challenging the inspection report on the ground that it was prepared in its absence, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012. The respondent-DVC, however, contended that the electric meter at the petitioner’s premises was found tampered and finding sufficient material for theft of electricity a criminal case being Balidih P.S Case No. 93 of 2012 was lodged on 26.06.2012 and electricity supply at the petitioner’s premises was disconnected. In the First Information Report, the loss caused to the respondent-DVC on account of theft of electricity has been assessed at Rs. 1.50 Crores. By an interim order dated 26.07.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012, the writ Court directed the respondent-DVC to restore power supply at the petitioner’s premises within 3 days on payment of 50% amount of the provisional assessment. It is pleaded that, before that, the respondent-DVC has issued letter dated 02.07.2012 in which an amount of Rs. 4,14,49,512/- has been shown as the provisional assessment of the loss caused to the respondent-DVC. After a new tariff-order was issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission in May, 2018, however, the petitioner was not allowed voltage rebate and load factor rebate, constrained, it has approached this Court. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-DVC has asserted that since a case of theft has been lodged against the petitioner and “final assessment” bill for Rs.4,14,49,512/- has been issued, the petitioner cannot claim the benefits under the new tariff-order. Another plea raised by the respondent-DVC is that the tariff-order which has come into force w.e.f 01.05.2018, and which would remain in force till a new tariff-order is issued by the Commission, cannot be given retrospective effect. 4. Another plea raised by the respondent-DVC is that the tariff-order which has come into force w.e.f 01.05.2018, and which would remain in force till a new tariff-order is issued by the Commission, cannot be given retrospective effect. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim order dated 26.07.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012 the assessment order by the respondent-DVC shall remain stayed and while so, under the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018 the petitioner becomes entitled for voltage rebate and load factor rebate. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the tariff-order issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission is binding on the parties and something which is not specifically written in the tariff-order cannot be imported there from outside by the respondent-DVC to deny the benefits of voltage rebate and load factor rebate to the petitioner. 6. Under clause 11.16 of the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018, it is provided that voltage rebate on energy charges to a consumer shall be given in the manner prescribed in Table 94 and load factor rebate shall be granted under clause 11.17 as reflected in Table 95. “Notes” appended to clause V and clause VI of the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018 are in identical terms. It reads as under : Clause V Note: The above rebate will be available only on monthly basis and consumer with arrears shall not be eligible for the above rebate. However, the applicable rebate shall be allowed to consumers with outstanding dues, wherein such dues have been stayed by the appropriate authority/Courts. 7. By now it is well-settled that a “Note” appended to a statutory provision has the same statutory force as the main provision and, it may be in the nature of explanation or exception to the main provision [refer, “R. Venkata Ramudu and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others” reported in (2016) 16 SCC 464]. 8. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that in the event a consumer neglects to pay any charge of electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission, distribution etc., if on clear 15 days’ notice in writing, fails to pay the sum/charge, the electricity supply at his premises shall be disconnected. Section 56 is an exception to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that is for good reasons, which mandates that every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month. Another exception to Section 43 is Section 135(1-A) under which on detection of theft of electricity the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall disconnect the electricity supply and lodge a First Information Report. However, an exception to Section 135 (1-A) has been provided under the third proviso to Section 135 (1-A) itself. It provides that on deposit or payment of the provisional assessment bill by the consumer, supply of electricity at his premises shall be restored within 48 hours. 9. Even ignoring the contradictory statements made in the counter-affidavit; letter dated 02.07.2012 reflects that it is provisional assessment for theft of electricity whereas in the counter-affidavit it is pleaded that a final assessment has been made, it needs to be recorded that in case of theft of electricity the distribution licensee is not authorized in law to pass a final assessment order. This is one of the distinctions between Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In a case of theft of electricity if the case has been sent-up for trial, only under Section 154(5) & (6) final assessment of loss caused to the licensee or supplier can be made, and, of course it shall be made by the criminal court and not by the distribution licensee or supplier. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the interim order passed by the writ Court, the stand taken by the respondent-DVC that it has issued a final assessment bill for Rs.4,14,49,512/- cannot be accepted and the consumer cannot be forced to pay the same at this stage and on this ground the petitioner cannot be denied benefits under the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018. 10. Further, it is a matter of record that the alleged assessment order as contained in letter dated 02.07.2012 was never insisted upon; no notice under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was given to the consumer and the respondent-DVC did not approach the writ Court by filing an application in W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012 for recall or modification of the interim order dated 26.07.2012. Mr. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the interim order was passed the alleged amount of Rs. 4,14,49,512/- was never insisted upon by the respondent-DVC before the writ Court and, in fact, what the respondent-DVC has done is to charge capacity charge which, in law, it is not entitled to raise in case of theft of electricity. At this stage it needs to be recorded that, may be it is an interim order, but the writ Court in the order dated 26.07.2012 has observed, “On perusal of the record as also the allegation made in the F.I.R., I find no cogent basis for coming to the calculation of loss of Rs. 1.5 Crores.” 11. On the plea raised by the respondent-DVC that there is no specific order of stay passed by the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012, all that which is required to observe is that it is the substance, effect and consequence of the interim order dated 26.07.2012 which have to be looked into. May be it is not specifically recorded in the interim order that the provisional assessment has been stayed, but in effect it is so. In Black’s Law Dictionary the expression “stay” has been explained to mean, (i) postponement or halting of a proceeding, judgment or the like, (ii) an order to suspend all or part of a judicial proceeding or a judgment resulting from that proceeding etc. Under Section 135(1-A) the respondent-DVC is entitled to disconnect the electricity supply at the petitioner’s premises, however, by virtue of the interim order dated 26.07.2012 electricity supply at the petitioner’s premises has been restored and while so, it must be construed in law that the operation of the provisional assessment by the respondent-DVC has been halted, that is to say, stayed by an order of the Court. The “Note” appended to clause V and VI unerringly discloses that a consumer with outstanding dues is also entitled for voltage rebate and load factor rebate, if the authority or the Court has passed an order of stay. Mr. Srijit Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent-DVC has also contended that on dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012 the interim order would merge in the final order and the consumer would become liable to pay the assessment amount. Mr. Srijit Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent-DVC has also contended that on dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 3704 of 2012 the interim order would merge in the final order and the consumer would become liable to pay the assessment amount. I am not inclined to accept this contention to decline the benefits under tariff-order dated 18.05.2018 to the petitioner for the simple reason that at least before dismissal of the writ petition the petitioner is entitled for voltage rebate and load factor rebate. Even if the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits under the tariff-order which has already accrued to it as on today, but then it has to be kept in mind that the Courts do not and, in fact, cannot decide cases on mere possibilities and probabilities [refer, “Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others” reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 (para 24)]. In so far as, retrospectivity of the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018 is concerned, the respondents themselves have pleaded that it has come into force w.e.f 01.05.2018 and Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is claiming benefits under the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018 from the date it has been enforced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for voltage rebate and load factor rebate under the tariff-order dated 18.05.2018, and the amount of Rs.2,53,96,629/- claimed by the respondent-DVC as outstanding dues cannot be enforced at this stage and it shall remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal case and assessment, if any, under Section 154(5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 13. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.