JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. 1. In this writ petition, the following prayers have been made:- (i) quashing the Inventory Report under Annexure-2; (ii) further a direction may kindly be issued to the opposite party for connection of power supply to the petitioner's premises within a stipulated period; and (iii) to pass such other order/orders or to issue such other writ/writs, as would afford complete relief to the petitioner. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner-Unit has obtained electricity connection by virtue of an agreement entered into with opposite party-WESCO on 12.06.2009 for supply of electrical energy to the premises of the consumer situated at IDC, Kalunga, P.S.-Brahmanitarang over Plot No.284, Khata No.27 in the district of Sundargarh for the purpose of manufacturing of Pencil Ingot. On 24.12.2010, the authorities of opposite party-WESCO has inspected the premises of the petitioner's Unit and found that the T.C. Inner and other seals fixed on the meter was tampered with and also found that meter was running slow by 28.47%, accordingly, they disconnected the power supply of petitioner's premises on 24.12.2010. The opposite party-WESCO has prepared Inventory Report to that effect and found therein that the consumer has dishonestly tampered the meter so as to interfere with accurate or proper registration in a manner whereby electricity is stolen, damage the electric meter so as to interfere with proper accurate metering of electricity, have used electricity through a tempered meter and has maliciously injured the meter to prevent from daily registration of actual consumption. These attract Clauses-135(1) and 138(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2003"). Subsequently, the provisional assessment has been made in exercise of power conferred under Section 126(1) of the Act, 2003. In terms of the provision of Section-126(3) of the Act, 2003, the petitioner has given its objection. Thereafter, the final order of assessment was passed in exercise of power conferred under Section-126 of the Act, 2003. However, no appeal was preferred under the provisions of Section-127 of the Act, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner-Unit for the commission of offence under Section-135 of the Act, 2003, in which, he has been acquitted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. However, no appeal was preferred under the provisions of Section-127 of the Act, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner-Unit for the commission of offence under Section-135 of the Act, 2003, in which, he has been acquitted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. Hence, the provisional or final assessment as has been made under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 will of no meaning, as such, the entire proceeding initiated under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 may be quashed. 3. Per contra, the case of the opposite party, as per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, is that the criminal proceeding initiated for the commission of offence under Section-135 of the Act, 2003 will have no bearing upon the proceeding initiated under Section-126 of the Act, 2003, since the provision as contained under Section-126 of the Act which stipulates regarding unauthorized use of electricity while Section-135 of the Act, 2003 deals with the criminal part and even if the consumer is being acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be exonerated from the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of writ petition, has raised the following submissions:- (i) There being an allegation of theft of electricity against the petitioner and an F.I.R. having been lodged under Section 135 of the Act, 2003, in which, the petitioner has been acquitted. Hence, there is no question of civil liability which is to be assessed under the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003. As such, the entire proceeding pending under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not sustainable in the eye of law; and (ii) The provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not applicable in the cases of theft of electricity under the provisions of Section-135 of the Act, 2003. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another -Vrs.- Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 2 SCC 108 . Mr. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another -Vrs.- Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 2 SCC 108 . Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has taken the ground that provisions of Sections-126 and 135 are altogether different, consequence is also different and even if the petitioner has been acquitted from the case of theft of electricity, it does not mean that the proceeding pending under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 will be held to be redundant. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal as provided under the provision of Section-127 of the Act, 2003 but since he has not preferred any appeal which suggests that the provisional assessment as also the final assessment done under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 has attained its finality and as such, the petitioner cannot be escaped from its liability. 5. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the submission made by the learned counsel parties and pleading on record, the following issues are arises for consideration in this writ petition:- (i) Whether in the case where theft of electricity alleges, Section-135 of the Act, 2003 in which the petitioner has been acquitted, an assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 can be held to be sustainable? (ii) Whether assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not applicable with regard to the cases of theft of electricity under Section-135 of the Act, 2003 and with regard to the cases of theft of the electricity under Section-135 of the Act, 2003, the civil liability is to be determined only by the Special Court where the trial is pending? 6. Both the issues are interrelated and as such, are being taken up together. Before considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in support of the above two issues, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provision in this regard. The Act, 2003 has been enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Part XII of the Act, 2003 bears heading "Investigation and Enforcement". Section-126 of the Act, 2003 provides for assessment which is as follows with explanation:- "126. The Act, 2003 has been enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Part XII of the Act, 2003 bears heading "Investigation and Enforcement". Section-126 of the Act, 2003 provides for assessment which is as follows with explanation:- "126. Assessment - (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. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub- section, (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him: (5) 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 unauthorized 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. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to [twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to [twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,- (a) "assessing officer" means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized." The definition of "unauthorized use of electricity" with explanation '(b)' of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is as follows:- "(b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized." Part XIV of the Act, 2003 deals with "Offences and Penalties". Section 135 of the Act, 2003 provides theft of electricity which is relevant in the present case as follows:- "135. Section 135 of the Act, 2003 provides theft of electricity which is relevant in the present case as follows:- "135. Theft of Electricity - (1) Whoever, dishonestly, - (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; (ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity: Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection: Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment. (2) Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorized in this behalf by the State Government may - (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being, used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being used for unauthorized use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act." Learned counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating the submission, has contended that since it is the Special Court which is to determine the civil liability against the consumer as provided under Section 154(5) of the Act, 2003, the assessment under Section-126 of the Act, cannot be made. He has submitted that Section-126 of the Act, 2003 shall not apply in the cases where there is allegation of theft of electricity. He has further submitted that assessment be made under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 in the cases for theft of electricity also there was no occasion for empowering the Special Court to determine the civil law. He has further submitted that in the present case since F.I.R. under Section-125 of the Act, 2003 has been registered and an allegation of theft of electricity has been made, in which, he has been acquitted and as such, the entire proceeding pending under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 will be held to be unsustainable. He, referring to the provision of the Act, 2003 especially the explanation '(b)' of Section-126 of the aforesaid Act, has submitted that "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. His further argument is that Section-135 of the Act, 2003 since is coming under Part XIV under the heading "Offences and Penalties" which deals with the theft of electricity (1) whoever, dishonestly,- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, It is evident from the bare reading of the meaning of theft as per the provision of Section-135 of the Act, 2003 and the unauthorized use of electricity as provided under sub-section(b) of Section-126 of the aforesaid Act that use of electricity is generous in which instances Section-135(1) of the Act, 2003 are specifies the theft of electricity is unauthorized use of electricity done dishonestly. Hence, the assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 has to follow whenever unauthorized use of electricity is made by a person as well as a consumer. The said unauthorized use of electricity becomes with coupled with dishonest intention which invites imprisonment. Section-126 of the Act, 2003 does not indicate that the assessment shall not be made, if the unauthorized use of electricity becomes a theft. Section-135 of the Act, 2003 also does not give any indication that assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not to be undertaken, if there is theft of electricity. Section-126 of the Act, 2003 does not indicate that the assessment shall not be made, if the unauthorized use of electricity becomes a theft. Section-135 of the Act, 2003 also does not give any indication that assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not to be undertaken, if there is theft of electricity. The sixth proviso to Section-135 of the Act, 2003 is as follows:- "Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within fortyeight hours of such deposit or payment." The sixth proviso to Section-135 of the Act, 2003 uses the words "assessed amount" which is nothing but an amount as contemplated by Section-126 of the Act, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to support his submission, has referred to sub-sections(5) and (6) of Section-154 of the Act, 2003. He submits that the said provision empowers the civil court to determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person. Hence, it is only there is Special Court which has jurisdiction to determine the civil liability. Hence, in theft cases, an assessment under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not contemplated since for determining the civil liability in two forums shall not be created. For ready reference, sub-sections(5) and (6) of Section-154 of the Act, 2003 is reproduced herein below:- "(5) The Special Court shall determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of Civil Court. (6) In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment." Civil liability is defined in explanation to Section-154 of the Act, 2003 which is to be the following effect:- "Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "civil liability" means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 and Section 150." Sub-section(6) of Section-154 of the Act, 2003 provides that in case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest. The words "deposited by the consumer or the person" in subsection(6) of Section-154 of the Act, 2003 are nothing but an amount deposited by the consumer in accordance with Section-126 of the Act, 2003, since there is no other provision of the Act, 2003 for deposit of the amount by a consumer or the person relating to theft of electricity. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section-154 of the Act, 2003 indicates that it is only the Special Court which shall determined civil liability in terms of money for theft of electricity cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another . 7. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another . In the said case, Hon'ble the Apex Court has occasioned to consider the distinction between the unauthorized use of electricity as provided in Section-126 of the Act, 2003 and theft of electricity as provided under Section-135 of the Act, 2003. In the said case, the respondent had obtained electricity supply under an Agreement on 9.12.1997. The premises was inspected on 10.06.2009. On 25.7.2009, a provisional assessment order was issued raising a demand. The respondent was required to file an objection. Respondent did not file any objection but file a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.12175 of 2009 challenging the provisional assessment order before the High Court. The plea taken by the respondent that the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is not attracted the above case. The High Court held that overdrawal of maximum demand would not follow under the scope of "unauthorized use of electricity" and the appellants have no jurisdiction to issue provisional assessment order against the order of High Court, the appellants have filed the appeal. The issues which fall for consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment to the following effect:- "12. 1. Wherever the consumer consumes electricity in excess of the maximum of the contracted load, would the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act be attracted on its true scope and interpretation? 2. Whether the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in interfering with the provisional order of assessment/show-cause notice dated 25.7.2009, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 3. Was the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not maintainable because of a statutory alternative remedy being available under Section 127 of the 2003 Act?" In the above context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provision of Sections-126 and 135 of the Act, 2003. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Sections-126 and 135 of the Act, 2003 work in different fields. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Sections-126 and 135 of the Act, 2003 work in different fields. The following was laid down in paragraphs 24 to 30 of the aforesaid judgment pointing out the distinction between the unauthorized use of electricity and theft of electricity which are quoted herein below:- "24. Upon their plain reading, the mark differences in the contents of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act are obvious. They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law. We have already noticed that Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 25. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to "offences and penalties" and title of the Section is "theft of electricity". The Section opens with the words whoever, dishonestly' does any or all of the acts specified under clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Besides imposition of punishment as specified under these provisions or the proviso thereto, Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the 2003 Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, through officer of rank authorized in this behalf by the appropriate commission, may immediately disconnect the supply of electricity and even take other measures enumerated under Sub-sections (2) to (4) of the said section. The fine which may be imposed under Section 135 of the 2003 Act is directly proportional to the number of convictions and is also dependent on the extent of load abstracted. 26. In contradistinction to these provisions, Section 126 of the 2003 Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression "unauthorized use of electricity". 26. In contradistinction to these provisions, Section 126 of the 2003 Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression "unauthorized use of electricity". This assessment/proceedings would commence with the inspection of the premises by an assessing officer and recording of a finding that such consumer is indulging in an "authorized use of electricity". Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment order in terms of Section 126(2) of the 2003 Act. 27. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. Thereafter, any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him or prefer an appeal against the resultant final order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The order of assessment under Section 126 and the period for which such order would be passed has to be in terms of Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The Explanation to Section 126 is of some significance, which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under Chapter XII and relates to investigation and enforcement and empowers the assessing officer to pass an order of assessment. 28. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea. 29. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea. 29. Thus, it would be clear that the expression "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorization, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under Section 135 of the Act. 30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorized use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorized use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act." In paragraph-29 of the aforesaid judgment, it would be clear that the expression "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section-126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in the absence of intention. The words "even in absence of intention" does mean that if there is any intention to steal the electricity, admittedly it will come under the fold of Section-135 of the Act, 2003 but even when there is absence of intention, it will be treated as unauthorized use of electricity so that the same will come under the fold of Section-126 of the Act, 2003, meaning thereby, the word which is to be taken into consideration is of unauthorized use of electricity and if there is an intention to steal the electricity along with the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 to make a provisional/final assessment, a case is also to be registered under the provision of Section 135 of the Act for inflicting punishment as per the aforesaid provision. Simultaneously, for recovering the revenue due to the unauthorized use of electricity by initiating a proceeding under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003. In paragraph-49 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the provisions of Section-126 of the 2003 Act are intended to cover the cases over and above the cases which would be specifically covered under the provisions of Section-135 of the 2003 Act. The said paragraph is quoted herein below:- 49. Once the court decides that it has to take a purposive construction as opposed to textual construction, then the legislative purpose sought to be achieved by such an interpretation has to be kept in mind. We have already indicated that keeping in view the legislative scheme and the provisions of the 2003 Act, it will be appropriate to adopt the approach of purposive construction on the facts of this case. We have also indicated above that the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act are intended to cover the cases over and above the cases which would be specifically covered under the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act." The Apex Court has observed in the said judgment that the expression of explanation under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is to be given wider amplified manner. Conclusions have been recorded in the paragraph-87 which is quoted herein below: "87. Having dealt with and answered determinatively the questions framed in the judgment, we consider it necessary to precisely record the conclusions of our judgment which are as follows:- 1. Conclusions have been recorded in the paragraph-87 which is quoted herein below: "87. Having dealt with and answered determinatively the questions framed in the judgment, we consider it necessary to precisely record the conclusions of our judgment which are as follows:- 1. Wherever the consumer commits the breach of the terms of the Agreement, Regulations and the provisions of the Act by consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned and connected load, such consumer would be "in blame and under liability" within the ambit and scope of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. 2. The expression "unauthorized use of electricity means" as appearing in Section 126 of the 2003 Act is an expression of wider connotation and has to be construed purposively in contrast to contextual interpretation while keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act. The cases of excess load consumption than the connected load inter alia would fall under Explanation (b)(iv) to Section 126 of the 2003 Act, besides it being in violation of Regulations 82 and 106 of the Regulations and terms of the Agreement. 3. In view of the language of Section 127 of the 2003 Act, only a final order of assessment passed under Section 126(3) is an order appealable under Section 127 and a notice-cum-provisional assessment made under Section 126(2) is not appealable. 4. Thus, the High Court should normally decline to interfere in a final order of assessment passed by the assessing officer in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The High Court did not commit any error of jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition against the order raising a jurisdictional challenge to the notice/provisional assessment order dated 25.7.2009. However, the High Court transgressed its jurisdictional limitations while travelling into the exclusive domain of the assessing officer relating to passing of an order of assessment and determining the factual controversy of the case. 6. The High Court having dealt with the jurisdictional issue, the appropriate course of action would have been to remand the matter to the assessing authority by directing the consumer to file his objections, if any, as contemplated under Section 126(3) and require the authority to pass a final order of assessment as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the 2003 Act in accordance with law. From the issues which falls for consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-12 and conclusions have been recorded in paragraph-87 of the aforesaid judgment, it does not indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issues that assessment is not to be made under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 in the cases falling under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 nor any such ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. From the facts of the case as noted above, the writ petition has been filed in the High Court challenging the assessment notice. The main issue for consideration before the High Court was that wherever the consumer consumes electricity in excess of consumption of the contracted load, would the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 be attracted. In the said judgment, no such ratio has been laid down which may support the petitioner's case that in the cases of theft of electricity under Section-135 of the Act, 2003, no assessment can be undertaken under Section-126 of the Act, 2003. Provision of Section-135 of the Act, 2003 has to be interpreted in the manner so as to give effect to the object or the purpose of the Act, 2003. Interpretation of both the provisions has to be made in harmonious manner to advance the object and to make both the provisions to approve and effective. Here it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tinsukhia Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. -Vrs.- State of Assam and Others, (1989) 3 SCC 709 where it has been laid down that the provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative. Paragarphs-118 and 120 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "118. The courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility. The provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative, on the principle "ut res magis valeat quam pereat". It is, no doubt, true that if a statute is absolutely vague and its language wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared void for vagueness. The provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative, on the principle "ut res magis valeat quam pereat". It is, no doubt, true that if a statute is absolutely vague and its language wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared void for vagueness. This is not in judicial review by testing the law for arbitrariness or unreasonableness under Article 14; but what a court of construction, dealing with the language of a statute, does in order to ascertain from, and accord to, the statute the meaning and purpose which the legislature intended for it." "Unless the words were so absolutely senseless that I could do nothing at all with them, I should be bound to find some meaning and not to declare them void for uncertainty." "120. It is, therefore, the court's duty to make what it can of the statute, knowing that the statutes are meant to be operative and not inept and the nothing short of impossibility should allow a court to declare a statute unworkable." 8. The fact of the case in hand is that the F.I.R. has been instituted which culminated into acquittal by the judgment rendered by the competent court as per the statute. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and as such, there is no liability upon him to make any payment as per the assessment made under the provisions of Section-126 of the Act, 2003. As has been stated hereinabove that the proceeding to be initiated under Sections-126 and 135 of the Act, 2003, but both are in different fields having no bearing to each other. 9. In view of such legal position, now it is to be examined by this Court whether after acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner can be given any benefit in a proceeding initiated under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003? It is evident from the judgment as has been annexed by the petitioner by way of rejoinder affidavit that the trial court has taken into consideration the deposition of P.W.1 given in paragraph-5 to the effect that the meter situated outside the factory is accessible to the public and it can be tampered by anybody desiring to do so. It is evident from the judgment as has been annexed by the petitioner by way of rejoinder affidavit that the trial court has taken into consideration the deposition of P.W.1 given in paragraph-5 to the effect that the meter situated outside the factory is accessible to the public and it can be tampered by anybody desiring to do so. The statement of P.W.12 has also been taken note as has been recorded in paragraph-4 of the deposition that audio meter situating outside is guarded by a WESCO employee and they had not received any report regarding any tampering from him. Further it has been revealed from the evident of P.Ws.10 and 12 that a dump report was prepared by WESCO every month which discloses actual reading of audit meter and main meter but the dump copy had not been handed over to police during investigation which would have clarified the actual energy consumption, and if the meters would have been tampered, then there would certainly have been discrepant readings of audit meter and dump copy reading. Further it has been taken note of the seized article marked as Ext.2 which was seized on 5.6.2011 that was after about six months of lodging of the F.I.R. but without any explanation by the I.O. and thereby acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case. This Court is of the view after going across the aforesaid judgment that the same is not clean acquittal rather on technicality, the benefit of doubt has been given and thereby the petitioner has been acquitted. However, this Court is not making any comment upon the legality and propriety of the judgment, since that is not the issue before this Court. This Court, after reiterating the legal settled position as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, is of the view that since proceeding is initiated under the provision of Section-135 of the Act, 2003 will have no bearing upon the proceeding initiated under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 that will also applicable even in case of acquittal in the criminal case for offence committed under Section-135 of the Act, 2003. One further point is to be referred herein that the petitioner has not chosen to file appeal under the provisions of Section-127 of the Act, 2003 against the final assessment order made by the authority under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 and as such, the final assessment has attained its finality. Hence, the petitioner's Unit is liable to make payment of the amount as has been assessed finally by the authority under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003. It is also relevant to refer herein a Letter No.42/2/2005-R&R dated 12th November, 2007 issued by the Director (R&R), Government of India, Ministry of Power to the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Energy) of all the States and the Secretaries to all SERCs referring the subject therein applicability of provisions of Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the Ministry of Power, Government of India that the assessment made under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 of the charges for unauthorized use of electricity would be applicable to those cases where action is taken for offences under Section 135 and the situation of alleged commitment of offence is covered under the provisions of Section-126. For ready reference, the content of the said letter is being quoted herein below:- "No.42/2/2005-R&R Government of India Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi The 12th November, 2007. To The Principal Secretary/Secretary (Energy) of all the States. The Secretary of all SERCs Sub: Applicability of Provisions of Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sir, Subsequent to the enactment to the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 references have been received from the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking clarification regarding applicability of the provisions of Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Deptt. of Legal Affairs and accordingly following is clarified : (i) Key difference between the two provisions of Sections 126 and 135 is that dishonest intention as mentioned u/s. 135 is the necessary ingredient for the offence of theft of electricity. (ii) For prosecuting someone u/s. 135 a complaint or a report by police to the Court is necessary u/s. 151. (iii) Section 126 is for assessment of the charges for unauthorised use of electricity. (ii) For prosecuting someone u/s. 135 a complaint or a report by police to the Court is necessary u/s. 151. (iii) Section 126 is for assessment of the charges for unauthorised use of electricity. This provision would also be applicable to those cases where action is taken for offences under Section 135 and the situation of alleged commitment of offence is covered under the provisions of Section 126. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Director (R&R)" 10. In view of the discussion made in detail hereinabove, both the issues are answered. Accordingly the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.