JUDGMENT : VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The appeals arise from three separate judgments in four writ petitions. The first of these judgments, which was followed in the other two, is impugned in W.A.No.803 of 2014. We, hence, take up for consideration first, the said writ appeal. 2. We have heard Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board [for brevity "the Board"] who is the appellant and Sri.A.A.Ziyad Rahman for the respondent in that appeal. The question raised is of legality of assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [for brevity “Act of 2003”]for exceeding the connected load. The essential challenge by the consumer is on two grounds: (i) the excess connected load alleged was approved by the Electrical Inspector and (ii) even if there is excess connected load as alleged; if the consumption does not exceed the contract load, there cannot be any penalty imposed. 3. On facts, it has to be noticed that an inspection was conducted by the Board on 17.02.2005. The respondent therein had a contract demand of 300 KVA and a connected load of 369 KVA as approved by the Electrical Inspector and the Board. There was detected an additional connected load, coming to 156 KVA, which led to an assessment under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 at twice the tariff rates applicable. The tariff rate applicable to the respondent, the fixed tariff, was Rs.270/-per KVA. Finding that the respondent had obtained an approval from the Electrical Inspector for the additional load, the assessment was confined to two months, ie:, from the date on which such approval was obtained to the date of inspection at two times as provided under Section 126 calculating the tariff at Rs.270/-per KVA on the additional load of 156 KVA. 4. Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset pointed out that Section 126 does not impose a penalty and it only speaks of an assessment and relies on the decision in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [ (2012) 2 SCC 108 ] to further buttress the position. Section 126 is a provision to check unauthorised use of electricity. Sub-section (2) speaks of a provisional assessment and sub-section (3) necessitates objections to be called for from the person on whom such an order has been served. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [ (2012) 2 SCC 108 ] to further buttress the position. Section 126 is a provision to check unauthorised use of electricity. Sub-section (2) speaks of a provisional assessment and sub-section (3) necessitates objections to be called for from the person on whom such an order has been served. If the provisional assessment is not satisfied, then the Assessing Officer, on coming to the conclusion of an unauthorised use of electricity, can assess to his best of judgment for the entire period during which such unauthorised use has taken place; subject to a limitation of a six month prior period as the provision then existed. The assessment under the Section shall also be at a rate of one and a half times (as it then existed) the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. The explanation defines “unauthorised use of electricity” and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that those are not the only instances of unauthorised use; as spoken of in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Explanation (b). Sulabha Marketing v. KSEB [ 2017 (3) KHC 563 (DB)] is specifically referred to and pointed out that even in the case of a consumer who is found to have used electricity unauthorisedly if there is no change in tariff applicable and the actual consumption has already been metered, then the assessment under Section 126 can only be equal to twice the fixed charges payable. Here, the consumption has already been recorded and the tariff paid accordingly and the assessment under Section 126 was only at twice the fixed charges payable. 5. Sri.Raju Joseph specifically opposes the finding of the learned Single Judge that the approval required is of the Electrical Inspector alone. Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 [for brevity “Rules of 1956”] which was applicable to the subject period, speaks of approval by Inspector. Even if an approval is taken from the Electrical Inspectorate, it does not mean that the installation can be made without an approval from the Board. It is pointed out that the agreement executed between the Board and the consumer specifically incorporates a diagram, which, is prepared initially, showing the wiring in the consumer's premises and the installations made. Any alteration or modification has to be with the approval of the Board and the Electrical Inspector. It is pointed out that the agreement executed between the Board and the consumer specifically incorporates a diagram, which, is prepared initially, showing the wiring in the consumer's premises and the installations made. Any alteration or modification has to be with the approval of the Board and the Electrical Inspector. Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 is also referred to. Regulations 5 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 is pointed out to emphasize the approval required from the Board for any modification to the connected load. The learned Senior Counsel would argue that merely because the consumers did not use electricity in excess of the contract demand, it cannot be assumed that Section 126 is not applicable. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that prior to the introduction of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, where there is detection of additional connected load by an HT consumer, if the contract demand has not been exceeded, there could be no penalty imposed. This is not correct according to the Board. Section 126, it is reiterated, is not a penalty imposition and is in the nature of deterrent assessment which would apply even when there is no electricity consumed in excess of the contract demand. 6. Sri.Ziyad Rahman, learned Counsel would, however, assert that the contract demand having not been exceeded, in both cases in which he appears for the respondent, there could be no imposition of penalty under Section 126. It is pointed out that 'connected load' and 'contract demand' are two different concepts. 'Connected load' refers to the load of all the equipments connected to the supply lines in the consumer's premises. It is essentially the potential consumption of the equipments connected and in no case all these equipments are used together. The 'connected load' will, in all foreseeable cases, be more than the 'contract demand'. In W.A.No.803 of 2014, it is pointed out that the connected load was 369 KVA, while the contract demand was only 300 KVA. It is the prerogative of the assessee-consumer to seek for a contract demand considering the use to which the connected load is put to in its premises. The use of the equipments has to be regulated so as to ensure that the consumption is below the contract demand. It is the prerogative of the assessee-consumer to seek for a contract demand considering the use to which the connected load is put to in its premises. The use of the equipments has to be regulated so as to ensure that the consumption is below the contract demand. If the assessee exceeds the contract demand, even if there is no additional connected load, there could be appropriate steps taken by the Board. However, in the present case the consumption has not exceeded the contract demand. It is argued that Section 126 has been incorporated specifically to ensure two aspects, ie: (i) to prevent an overload, putting the supply to jeopardy or (ii)a financial loss to the Board. An overload occurs only on the consumption exceeding the contract demand, while financial loss happens only when the consumption of energy is not recorded. Both these aspects have not arisen in the present case. In such circumstance, there could not be any penalty imposed under Section 126. 7. Further it is argued that tariff, has to be understood, as available from the Tariff Orders issued from time to time. With respect to an HT consumer, the fixed charge is the charges having a nexus with the contract demand and the energy charges are with reference to the actual consumption. In deciding the tariff, the connected load is not at all relevant or significant. Hence, merely for reason of an excess of connected load, there could be no penalty imposed under Section 126, since the tariff, as spoken of in Section 126, has no nexus with the connected load. Sri.Ziyad Rahman also points out that both Sri Seetaram Rice Mill and Sulabha Marketing were instances in which there was a consumption in excess of the contract demand and the declarations made in the decisions may not squarely apply in the facts of the case. 8. Sri.Paul Jacob, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.2024 of 2016, argues that in his case though the connected load was 2713 KVA, the consumer had made an application to the Electrical Inspector for deletion of 464 KVA. True, the assessee had installed an additional connected load of 112 KVA, for which approval was applied, to the Electrical Inspector. The same was also approved on 20.07.2004, as is seen from Exhibit P2. True, the assessee had installed an additional connected load of 112 KVA, for which approval was applied, to the Electrical Inspector. The same was also approved on 20.07.2004, as is seen from Exhibit P2. The Electrical Inspector had also approved the deletion of 464 KVA as per Exhibit P3 dated 22.08.2005. It is submitted that at the time of inspection, 464 KVA which was sought for deletion, was not available in the premises and hence, the total connected load, inclusive of the 112 KVA, would be within the approved connected load of the consumer. Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Clause 13 of the agreement at Exhibit P1 are pointed out to contend that the agreement speaks of disconnection in the event of a violation of the terms. There is nothing in the statute, the rules or the regulations enabling imposition of a penalty. Section 126 does not at all apply and no assessment is warranted since the consumption had not exceeded the contract demand at any point and the power consumed was properly metered and the charges paid. It is also emphasised; later when the matter was posted as spoken to, that the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned has specifically found that in this case there is no excess of connected load. 9. In the judgment impugned in W.A. 803 of 2014, the crucial question framed was the determination of a violation of any regulation or the terms and conditions of agreement for supply, having been occasioned. Regulation 11(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 was noticed to find that it insists on an inspection and approval from the Board as also Electrical Inspectorate. Clause 14(b) of the agreement produced at Exhibit P1 was also held to restrict the consumer from making any alteration on the machinery by way of addition or substitution or transfer, which is liable to increase the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand and/or which may affect the supply system of the Board to its detriment. The contention of the respondent-writ petitioner was that the rigor of the provisions would apply only if the additional installation resulted in increasing the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand. The contention of the respondent-writ petitioner was that the rigor of the provisions would apply only if the additional installation resulted in increasing the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand. It was found that in the case of the consumer there was no demand in excess of the contract demand. It was also found that there was no authorisation obtained from the Board with respect to usage of the additional electrical equipment installed. Then, the learned Single Judge looked into the aspect of the lack of approval; inviting an imposition of penalty either under clause 14(b) of the agreement, the Regulations of 1990 or under Section 126 of the Act of 2003. The consequence of violation of clause 14(b) of the agreement was specifically stated there under, which only speaks of disconnection of supply. It was held that there was no unauthorised use of electricity for reason only of the installation of additional machinery, since such installation had not resulted in the consumption exceeding the contract demand. It was also found that the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, which was brought into force after the subject inspections, contained a specific provision by which unauthorised additional load could be penalized as misuse of energy. Prior to the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 there could not be any penalty for mere installation of additional load, if there is no consumption in excess of the contract demand was the finding which is challenged in appeal. The learned Single Judge whose decision is challenged in W.A. 1043 of 2014 further held that the approval as mandated in the Explanation at sub clause (ii) used an 'or'; in a disjunctive manner, and an approval from either of the persons therein would suffice. 10. Having gone through the decisions cited before us, we are not inclined to accept the distinction placed on facts, to not follow the precedent. True in both the cited cases, there was consumption in excess of the contract demand. We also realize that connected load is the only specification with respect to low tension consumers. But that does not dilute the significance of connected load insofar as HT consumers merely because they have a stipulation of contract demand based on which fixed charges are levied. We also realize that connected load is the only specification with respect to low tension consumers. But that does not dilute the significance of connected load insofar as HT consumers merely because they have a stipulation of contract demand based on which fixed charges are levied. The interpretation of the various provisions in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, which has been followed extensively in Sulabha Marketing, are not confined to the facts of that particular cases alone. The term “unauthorised use of electricity” for the purpose of assessment under Section 126 is defined in Explanation (b) to Section 126; which was interpreted in the cited decisions. What is applicable in the present case is sub-clause (ii), which speaks of unauthorised use by means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee. Both the learned Counsel who argued in support of the respondents contended that the word 'or' used, makes it clear that if an approval has been obtained from any of the three, then there could be found no unauthorised use. The contention has been raised on the ground that in all the cases the approval of Electrical Inspector has been obtained for installation of the additional machinery. We are not inclined to interpret so, the mandate of approval from the concerned person or authority or licensee. If the Statute, the Rules framed there under or the specific terms of the agreement speak of an approval from more than one persons specified therein, then the word 'or' has to be understood as 'and'. Otherwise, the restriction of unauthorised use, which is the intention behind Section 126, would be rendered otiose. Section 126 enables assessment when there is no approval obtained. The mandate of approval has to be found from either the statute, the rules, the terms and conditions of supply or the agreement entered into by the consumer. 11. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill found that Section 126 read with Section 127 is a Code in itself and the principal consideration of the legislature in bringing the provision was the revenue focus. The purpose which is sought to be achieved by Section 126 was held to be “to put an implied restriction on such unauthorised consumption of electricity”. It was held so in paragraph 19: “19. The purpose which is sought to be achieved by Section 126 was held to be “to put an implied restriction on such unauthorised consumption of electricity”. It was held so in paragraph 19: “19. The provisions of the 2003 Act, applicable Regulations and the Agreement executed between the parties at the time of sanction of the load prohibit consumption of electricity in excess of maximum sanctioned/installed load”. Section 126 was also held to be intended to cover situations other than the situations specifically covered under Section 135 of the Act. A purposive interpretation in preference to textual interpretation was found necessary to achieve the aim of workability of the enactment in the following words: “22. The relevancy of objects and reasons for enacting an Act is a relevant consideration for the Court while applying various principles of interpretation of statutes. Normally, the Court would not go behind these objects and reasons of the Act. The discussion of a Standing Committee to a Bill may not be a very appropriate precept for tracing the legislative intent but in given circumstances, it may be of some use to notice some discussion on the legislative intent that is reflected in the substantive provisions of the Act itself. The Standing Committee on Energy, 2001, in its discussion said, 'the Committee feel that there is a need to provide safeguards to check the misuse of these powers by unscrupulous elements'. The provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act are self-explanatory, they are intended to cover situations other than the situations specifically covered under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. This would further be a reason for this Court to adopt an interpretation which would help in attaining the legislative intent. 23. By applying these principles to the provisions of this case requiring judicial interpretation, we find no difficulty in stating that the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act should be read with other provisions, the Regulations in force and they should be so interpreted as to achieve the aim of workability of the enactment as a whole while giving it a purposive interpretation in preference to textual interpretation.” The authoritative pronouncement in the above extract is applicable generally without any fetter placed on facts. 12. 12. 'Authorisation', according to Sulabha Marketing, refers to “the permission of the licensee to use energy subject to the terms and conditions for such use and the law governing the subject” (sic). What governs the subject is the Statute, the Rules, the Terms and Conditions of Supply as also the contract between the parties. When electricity is consumed in violation of any one, some or all of these, there would be an unauthorized use, for which there could be an assessment under Section 126. In Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, the expression “unauthorised use of electricity” under Section 126 was held to be use of electricity in a manner not authorised by the licensee, herein the Board. True, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the issue wherein there was consumption in excess of the sanctioned load, which, without anything more, is violative of the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as of the statutory prohibitions. In paragraph 87 of Sri Seetaram Rice Mill case, it was concluded that wherever the consumer commits 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'. Here the Division Bench found, on facts of that case; where there was consumption in excess of the connected and sanctioned load and there was no contract load applicable. We agree that this has no application here; but then it can only be stated that on facts of there being no consumption in excess of the contract demand; as in the case of HT consumers, the issue is res integra. However that is not to say that the declaration with respect to the scope and ambit of Section 126, in the cited decisions, would be whittled down to any extent. 13. The operative portion of Sulabha Marketing at paragraph 31 applies to the present case only with respect to the term “tariff” in Section 126(6) having been held to include both fixed charges and charges for the electricity supplied, which answers the question insofar as the tariff prescribed for HT consumers as per the Tariff Orders, having no reference to the connected load. But, before that, we should look at whether an assessment could be carried out under Section 126 finding unauthorised use even if there is no excess consumption of electricity alleged. 14. In the present cases there is no excess drawing of electricity alleged. In W.A.No.803 of 2014, as we noticed, the contract demand is 300 KVA and the connected load is 369 KVA. The additional load found on inspection was 156 KVA. In W.A.No.1043 of 2014, the contract demand is 175 KVA and the connected load 192.25 KVA. The additional load found on inspection was 153 KVA. In W.A.No.2024 of 2016, the contract demand was 600 KVA and the connected load 2713 KVA. The additional load found was 112 KVA. The impugned orders in the writ petitions all indicate that there was no assessment on electricity charges, which itself makes it clear that there was no consumption of electricity in excess of the contract demand. All the consumers in the above cases had used electricity only within their respective contract demands. In such circumstances whether Section 126 assessment can be made on the consumers, is the vexing question. 15. We notice from the provision under Section 126 itself that what is assessed at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable; is the unauthorised use of electricity. There is absolutely no reference to such unauthorised use being in excess of the contract demand. Unauthorised use can be in circumstances when there was additional equipment connected and used, which did not have the approval from either the Electrical Inspector or the Board. Admittedly additional equipment were installed in all the consumers' premises and they were also put to use for the months in which there was an assessment made under Section 126. The additional equipment having not been approved, the use of such equipment becomes unauthorised and the connected load applicable to those equipment when used, would be the “unauthorised use of electricity” in such cases. Consumption in excess of the contract demand would definitely be an unauthorised use and in such cases, there could be an assessment for unauthorised use of electricity; both on the fixed charges and the electricity charges. Consumption in excess of the contract demand would definitely be an unauthorised use and in such cases, there could be an assessment for unauthorised use of electricity; both on the fixed charges and the electricity charges. Sulabha Marketing, held that when the unauthorised use has been metered and the charges levied and paid; if there is no warrant for revision of tariff, by reason of the consumption having exceeded, there could be only imposition of twice the fixed charges; here at the relevant time, one and one half. 16. In all the above cases, the consumers, except one, admit to additional installation of equipment and do not at all challenge the load requirement of such additional equipment installed without the consent or approval of the Board; but with approval of the Electrical Inspectorate. Hence, the additional connected load in all these instances are admitted. The consumers refer to the approvals obtained from the Electrical Inspector and their consumption during the assessment period and rest contend to assail the assessment under Section 126. The consumers also ground their contentions on the approval by the Electrical Inspector under Rule 63 of the Rules of 1956. Rule 63 speaks only of approval by Inspector argues Counsel. It is also evident that after approval by the Electrical Inspector, the copy thereof is sent to the Electricity Board. 17. Now, we come to the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board. Regulation 11 speaks of approval of consumer's installation and in the case of HT consumers requires electrical equipments to be subjected to an inspection and approval of the Board's Engineer before it is connected to the system. It also speaks of approval in writing of the Electrical Inspector under Rule 63 of the Rules of 1956. Hence, the mandate is to get an approval under Rule 63 from the Electrical Inspector after inspection and approval by the Board under Regulation 11. It is submitted by Sri.Ziyad Rahman that in practice the consumer applies for approval from the Electrical Inspector and informs the Board only if there is a requirement for additional power allocation. Hence, the mandate is to get an approval under Rule 63 from the Electrical Inspector after inspection and approval by the Board under Regulation 11. It is submitted by Sri.Ziyad Rahman that in practice the consumer applies for approval from the Electrical Inspector and informs the Board only if there is a requirement for additional power allocation. The decision as to power requirement is the prerogative of the consumer and if the additional installations are approved by the Electrical Inspector, the role of the Board is limited insofar as only ensuring that the power consumption does not exceed that allocated, which, in the case of a HT consumer, is called the 'contract demand'. 18. Whatever the practice be, we are persuaded to find, on a combined reading of Rule 63 of the Rules of 1956 and Regulation 11 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 that the reverse would be applicable. Rule 63(1) of the Rules of 1956 is extracted here under: “63. Approval by Inspector.-(1) Before making an application to the Inspector for permission to commence supply of energy at high or extra-high voltage to any person, the supplier shall ensure that the high or extra-high voltage electric supply lines or apparatus belonging to him are placed in position, properly joined and duly completed and examined. The supply of energy shall not be commenced by the supplier unless and until the Inspector is satisfied that the provisions of Rules 65 to 69 (both inclusive) have been complied with and the approval in writing of the Inspector has been obtained by him: Provided that the supplier may energise the aforesaid electric supply lines or apparatus for the purpose of tests specified in Rule 65”. It is clear that before making an application to the Inspector, the supplier, herein the Board, has to ensure that the high or extra-high voltage electric supply lines or apparatus belonging to him are placed in position, properly joined and duly completed and examined. The responsibility, hence, is on the Board to ensure the pre-requisites for making an application before the Electrical Inspector. This, according to us, is the inspection to which the premises are to be subjected under Regulation 11 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. Regulation 11(a) is extracted hereunder: R11. The responsibility, hence, is on the Board to ensure the pre-requisites for making an application before the Electrical Inspector. This, according to us, is the inspection to which the premises are to be subjected under Regulation 11 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. Regulation 11(a) is extracted hereunder: R11. Approval of Consumer's Installation : (a) Before any wiring or apparatus (in the case of low tension consumers) and transformers, switchgear and other electrical equipment (in the case of H.T. Consumers) is connected to the system, the same shall be subjected to the inspection and approval of the Board's Engineer and no connection will be made without his approval. Before any wiring or apparatus (in the case of H.T. and E.H.T. Consumers) is connected to the Board's supply, approval in writing of the Electrical Inspector should be produced under rule 63 of I.E. Rules, 1956”. After the said inspection is over and the pre-requisites to enable an application before the Board is ensured, the proviso requires the supplier to energise the lines or apparatus for the purpose of tests specified in Rule 65; which are to be carried on by the Electrical Inspector. The regular supply can be commenced only after the Inspector is satisfied that the provisions of Rules 65 to 69 have been complied with and an approval in writing is obtained from such Inspector. The Rules and the Regulations, hence, provide for an approval from the Board and the Electrical Inspector. This applies at the initial stage of energisation and even when modifications additions or substractions are required, as we will presently see, also from the agreements. We pause here to observe that the impugned decisions also found the requirement of an approval from the Board; but held in favour of the consumer, finding absence of any provision enabling penalty, under Section 126. 19. We now look at the agreement as produced at Exhibit P1 in the writ petition from which W.A.No.803 of 2014 arise. The agreement is identical in all the cases. We extract hereunder Clause 13 and sub-clause (c) as also Clause 14 and sub-clauses (b) and (c): “13. The consumer shall furnish to the Board, full particulars accompanied by drawing showing the arrangement of all electrical plant and equipment installed by the consumer as also full details of loads. The agreement is identical in all the cases. We extract hereunder Clause 13 and sub-clause (c) as also Clause 14 and sub-clauses (b) and (c): “13. The consumer shall furnish to the Board, full particulars accompanied by drawing showing the arrangement of all electrical plant and equipment installed by the consumer as also full details of loads. The plant and equipment so installed shall be of suitable design and in regard to manufacture, construction and performance conform to the relevant Indian/British Standard specification or other equivalent standard specification applicable to such plant and equipment and their operation shall not be calculated to interfere with or detrimentally affect the service of the Board or the supply to any other consumer. To that purpose, the following regulations shall be observed: xxx xxx xxx (c) The completed installation should be got satisfactorily tested and inspected by the Engineer of the board authorised in this behalf and a certificate to that effect shall be produced before a power service is given. 14. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) The consumer shall not make any alteration on the machinery/equipment either by way of addition or substitution or transfer which is liable to increase the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand and/or which may affect the supply system of the Board to its detriment. In any event the consumer shall notify the Board of the intended alterations, additions, substitutions or transfers and obtain the prior approval of the Board in writing before execution of any such action. (c) When no such approval in writing is obtained, the Board shall be entitled to cut off the supply if the Board is satisfied (i) That the obligation to supply electrical power to the consumer by any such alteration, addition etc. becomes greater than the contract demand, or (ii) That any part of the Board's electrical equipment including feeders and metering equipment is, by any such alteration etc., overloaded, damaged or otherwise detrimentally affected, or (iii) that supply of sufficient power to any other consumer is thereby jeopardized”. {underlining by us for emphasis and double underlining for more emphasis} 20. Clause 13 requires the drawing showing the arrangement of all electrical plant and equipment installed by the consumer as also full details of the connected load; which is incorporated with the agreement. {underlining by us for emphasis and double underlining for more emphasis} 20. Clause 13 requires the drawing showing the arrangement of all electrical plant and equipment installed by the consumer as also full details of the connected load; which is incorporated with the agreement. Any modification in the premises, from the drawing incorporated with the agreement has to be approved by the Board too; which otherwise would be a violation. Sub-clause (c) requires the completed installations to be satisfactory and tested by the Engineer of the Board authorised in this behalf and a certificate to that effect produced before power service is supplied; which is applicable at every instance of a modification as per the terms of the agreement. The power to disconnect supply as available in Clause 13(c) is at the discretion of the Board and merely because such a drastic action was not taken, it cannot be understood as the consumer being absolved of all blame, with respect to unauthorised use of electricity. In fact such disconnection can be effected only if either the circumstance under sub clauses (i),(ii) or (iii) is occasioned; which has not occurred here. 21. The drawing supplied to the Board by the consumer based on which the inspection is carried out and the certificate issued, gets incorporated in the agreement between the Board and the consumer. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 14 of the agreement speaks of six months notice being required when the consumer desires an increase or decrease in the contract demand. The Board is also required to look into and be satisfied about the bona fides and technical feasibility of such a change in contract demand, which could be allowed only if sufficient surplus power is available. This is not applicable in these cases, since here there is no consumption in excess of the contract demand. 22. At the risk of repetition, here we are not concerned with any change in contract demand because, as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the decision as to the exact contract demand is the prerogative of the consumer. Despite additional load having been installed, the consumption is within the contract demand. As noticed, sub-clause (b) of Clause 14 as extracted above requires, in the event of any alteration of the machinery or equipment by addition, substitution or transfer, an approval of the Board. Despite additional load having been installed, the consumption is within the contract demand. As noticed, sub-clause (b) of Clause 14 as extracted above requires, in the event of any alteration of the machinery or equipment by addition, substitution or transfer, an approval of the Board. The argument of the assessees is that such approval is only required when such modification “is liable to increase the obligation of the Board to supply electrical energy in excess of the agreed contract demand”. If it is understood so, then the further words “and/or which may affect the supply system of the Board to its detriment” has to be ignored and totally eschewed from the contract. 23. Admittedly in all the cases the connected load was in excess of the contract demand. The assessee having applied for and obtained a power allocation, being an HT consumer, is only obliged to keep the consumption of additional load by way of installation of new electrical equipments is carried out, it could; on a use without the approval of the Board, lead to the supply system of the Board being affected detrimentally. The argument of the consumers is to the effect that in the present cases it is evident that no such detrimental effect has been occasioned. Hence, there is no reason for an assessment for unauthorised use is the compelling argument. We are unable to countenance such a contention especially looking at the intention with which the provision under Section 126 has been introduced as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court “to put an implied restriction on such unauthorised consumption of electricity”. These arguments, in fact would apply, only against the drastic action of disconnection as provided under Clause 13(c) of the agreement. 24. An actual consumption in excess of the contract demand is not necessary for attracting the deterrent provisions under Section 126. Further, we have already held that with the use of the additional equipment of specified loads found on inspection and admittedly used by the consumers, the consumers used electricity unauthorisedly for reason of the said equipment having not been approved by the Board as per the Regulations and the specific terms in the agreement. 25. The contention with respect to sub-clause (c) of Clause 14 of the agreement is to be noticed only to be rejected. 25. The contention with respect to sub-clause (c) of Clause 14 of the agreement is to be noticed only to be rejected. As already found, sub-clause (c) enables the Board to cut off the supply when the Board is satisfied that either of the circumstances enumerated as (i), (ii) or electricity under the contract demand. However, when (iii) as seen under sub-clause (c) has been occasioned. This again is an enabling provision which does not override the statutory prescription for assessment of unauthorised use of electricity. The statutory prescription being in the nature of a restriction; ensuring that no unauthorised use of electricity occurs, gets incorporated in the agreement as a restrictive covenant. The additional connected load used, which installation is without approval, results in unauthorised to the extent to which such additional equipment are put to use. When they are operated, as admittedly they were, after the installation, the electricity consumed by those equipments will be unauthorised use. The load of those equipment additionally connected to the supply lines, without the approval of the Board, is the unauthorised use of electricity which is subjected to assessment under Section 126. 26. Now we come to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the tariff as spoken of in Section 126, cannot be equated or determined by reference to the connected load. As we noticed from the Tariff Order issued by the Board, for HT consumers there is a fixed charge by way of demand charge and energy charges, the latter of which is with reference to the consumption of actual power. The fixed charges are determined with reference to the contract demand. The determination of fixed charges is available from Clause 10 of Exhibit P1 agreement, which is extracted hereunder: “10. For the purpose of this agreement the maximum KVA demand will be the average of the quantities of KVA delivered to the point of supply of the consumer recorded during any consecutive 30 minutes period of maximum use in the month registered by the 11 KV / 22 KV metering equipment installed near the point of supply. This is also defined as twice the largest number of KVAH supplied and taken during any consecutive thirty minutes in the month. This is also defined as twice the largest number of KVAH supplied and taken during any consecutive thirty minutes in the month. The demand based on which the consumer will be billed for a month (billing demand) shall be: (a) Actual Maximum Demand established during the month rounded to the nearest integer in KVA OR (b) 75% of the Contract Demand OR (c) 50 KVA, whichever is higher”. On facts, we again refer to W.A.No.803 of 2014, wherein the fixed charge is Rs.270/-; the highest among (a), (b) and (c) in the above extract. The fixed charges, hence, would be computed on the basis of the contract demand. When the consumer is found to have unauthorisedly used an equipment; but, however, without any excess consumption of electricity over that of the contract demand, then the assessment can only be of the additional connected load. The additional connected load being not approved by the Board, is an unauthorised use and it would have to be levied fixed charges as an unauthorised use; since it is in addition to the contract demand levied on the consumer based on the approved connected load. True the contract demand is what is sought for by the consumer, but the Board is not fettered by what is demanded by the consumer. There are a lot of factors which determine the contract demand, eventually sanctioned by the Board. There can be no assumption that when the consumer connects additional load in excess of the connected load, then there would be no consumption in excess of the contract load. It cannot also be assumed that in such circumstance there would be no detrimental effect to the supply or the financial aspects. If such assumptions are made then it would render Section 126 applicable only when the additional load results in any disruption of supply or financial loss. If we place such interpretation on the provision, it would be begging the question; inviting a disruption or financial loss to apply Section 126. Then it would go against the declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a deterrent measure. If deterrence is the intention, is the Board to wait for the deleterious consequence? The answer would be an emphatic NO. Hence, the contention of the Board that Section 126 is a power to assess and not to penalize; which we endorse. Then it would go against the declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a deterrent measure. If deterrence is the intention, is the Board to wait for the deleterious consequence? The answer would be an emphatic NO. Hence, the contention of the Board that Section 126 is a power to assess and not to penalize; which we endorse. The deleterious consequences of disruption of supply in general or financial loss, if occasioned, by similar defalcations of absence of approval, could lead to other consequences; for example disconnection as available in clause 14(c). We, hence, do not find any reason to countenance the argument of the learned Counsel based on the ground that the tariff cannot at any point be equated with the connected load. The connected load of equipment, which are not approved, by both the Electrical Inspector and the Bosard, or one of them, is the unauthorised use of electricity. The load of the equipment in excess of the connected load is the unauthorised use, assessed under the fixed tariff with reference to contract load, which as applicable to the consumer, sanctioned for the specific connected load having approval of both the Board and the Electrical Inspector. 27. Further in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board issued B.O. (FB) No.46/2003 (Plg.Com.4206/01) dated 15.01.2003, which was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 26.02.2003. The following amendment is brought to clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which is extracted hereunder: “5. In the case of HT and EHT consumers the unauthorized additional load shall be got disconnected by the consumer within twenty-four hours of detection of the unauthorised load by the Board's officer. A notice to this effect shall be issued to the consumer by the Board's officer immediately on detection of the unauthorised load. If the consumer fails to disconnect the unauthorised load within the time stipulated, the power supply to the premises shall be disconnected after the expiry of 24 hours. Unauthorised additional load shall be charged at the rate of twice the demand charges per KVA for the additional load till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules. No penalty will be charged on the energy charges on account of unauthorised additional load. Unauthorised additional load shall be charged at the rate of twice the demand charges per KVA for the additional load till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules. No penalty will be charged on the energy charges on account of unauthorised additional load. The penalty shall be for a period of previous six months if there are not convincing reasons to adopt a different date. The tariff applicable for charging the penalty shall be the HT/EHT tariff that would have been applicable for the unauthorised load depending upon the purpose for which the connection was utilized. If the consumer fails to pay the bill amount the service shall be disconnected without further notice. It shall be reconnected only after payment of the penalty and other charges, if any, as per rules and removal or regularisation of the unauthorised additional load by the consumer on application before the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of detection of the unauthorised additional load. 6. The clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy issued vide the Board order read as first paper will stand amended to the above extent”. The above amendments brought to Clause 42 (d) also enables a penalty to be imposed on the unauthorised use. This amendment came into effect prior to the inspection in these cases. 28. Lastly, we have to deal with the contention raised in W.A.No.2024 of 2016 that there the learned Single Judge had found on facts that the connected load also has not been exceeded. The reliance is on the first sentence in paragraph 6, which we quote here: “On the facts of the case at hand, it is to be accepted that the petitioner had never exceeded either the 'contract demand' or the 'connected load', as evidenced from Exts.P2 and P3”. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the approvals of the Electrical Inspector. Exhibit P2 is the approval of the Electrical Inspector dated 20.07.2004. Exhibit P3 is the approval for deletion of 464 KVA allowed on 22.08.2005. The inspection carried out was in between, on 04.04.2005. Though the consumer argues that application for deletion was made earlier, the document read in Ext.P3 order only indicate a letter from the consumer dated 19.08.2005; after the date of inspection [04.04.2005]. Exhibit P3 is the approval for deletion of 464 KVA allowed on 22.08.2005. The inspection carried out was in between, on 04.04.2005. Though the consumer argues that application for deletion was made earlier, the document read in Ext.P3 order only indicate a letter from the consumer dated 19.08.2005; after the date of inspection [04.04.2005]. Factually, on inspection it was found that there is an excess connected load of 112 KVA. Hence, the contention of the consumer that 464 KVA which was sought to be deleted was not available at the time of inspection cannot be countenanced. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the connected load had not exceeded, was based on Exhibit P2 approval of the Electrical Inspector. We have already held that such an approval alone would not suffice. The Writ Appeals, on the findings above, would stand allowed, setting aside the judgments in the writ petitions. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.