JUDGMENT : A.K. MISHRA, J. 1. The Order dated 13.07.2017 in dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.13047 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge is assailed in this appeal by the appellant-petitioner. By such dismissal, the prayer to interfere with the order of appellate authority U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not acceded to. 2. Facts are encapsulated thus:- M/s. Satguru Metals & Power Pvt. Ltd. is a power intensive industry at Gariamal under Rajgangpur Sub-Division. For electricity consumption it had entered into an agreement on 5.6.2009 with Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha (in short "WESCO") and thereby was allotted Consumer No.358 P(II) RRKL/3-0191 with contract demand of 5700 KVA. 2.(a) On 11.12.2010, a surprise inspection was conducted by the present appellant-assessing officer in presence of police and other officers. Abstraction of power supply from 33KV line of the distribution system by means of taping (hooking) was detected. Connected insulated copper conductor, ropes, hand gloves, cement plastic bags, foot wears were detected. The officers could not enter inside as the consumer-company did not co-operate and Inventory Report was pasted on the wall. 2.(b) On 21.12.2010, the assessing officer-cum-Executive Engineer, RED Rajgangpur issued a provisional assessment order U/s.126(1) and 126(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 demanding Rs. 2,23,02,241/- for unauthorised abstraction of electricity. The consumer-company had filed objection on 27.12.2010 raising plea that there was no inspection and assessment for making demand was illegal. 2.(c) On 29.12.2010, rejecting such objection, the provisional assessment order was made final U/s. 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2.(d) Against such final order of assessment and disconnection notice, the consumer-company filed writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos.176 and 763 of 2011 and pursuant to the interim order passed by the writ court, the consumer had deposited Rs.50.00 lakhs for restoration of power supply. On 11.09.2012, both writ petitions were disposed of giving liberty to the consumer-company to prefer the appeal U/s. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of 30 days from the date of order. 2.(e) The consumer-company instead of preferring appeal U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed writ appeal bearing W.A. No.425 of 2012 which was dismissed on 20.12.2012. Thereafter on 31.01.2013, the consumer-company had preferred the appeal U/s.127 of the Electricity Act bearing No.A.F.O.-3 of 2012-13 before the appellate authority-cum-S.E.-cum-Electrical Inspector, Rourkela. 2.(e) The consumer-company instead of preferring appeal U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed writ appeal bearing W.A. No.425 of 2012 which was dismissed on 20.12.2012. Thereafter on 31.01.2013, the consumer-company had preferred the appeal U/s.127 of the Electricity Act bearing No.A.F.O.-3 of 2012-13 before the appellate authority-cum-S.E.-cum-Electrical Inspector, Rourkela. The appellate authority vide its order dated 6.6.2015 considered the appeal as directed by the High Court and held that the consumer-company was not provided with the mandatory reasonable opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer for making the provisional order final as per Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2.(f) The appellate authority also ascertained the unauthorised use of electricity on the basis of dump report submitted by Assessing Officer. For working out the same, he took the difference of meter reading of Sundargarh Sub-station and consumer M/s. Satguru Metals and Power Pvt. Ltd. with T & D loss, and found that unaccounted energy was drawn from the system and thereby energy was unauthorisedly consumed by the consumer-company. He concluded that the period of such abnormal drawal was from the month of November, 2010 till the time of dis-connection i.e. on 11.12.2010. Accordingly, he fixed the penalty twice of the applicable rates of energy charges, which was calculated to be Rs.31,01,130/-. 3. The said order of the appellate authority was challenged in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.13047 of 2015. Before the learned Single Judge, the contention was confined to only two points i.e. (i) acceptance of appeal after prescribed period U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and (ii) ascertainment of the unauthorised use of electricity on the basis of dump report ignoring 12 months presumption as done by the Assessing Officer. No other point was advanced as mentioned in the impugned judgment at para-4 by the learned Single Judge. 3.(a) Learned Single Judge distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vrs. No other point was advanced as mentioned in the impugned judgment at para-4 by the learned Single Judge. 3.(a) Learned Single Judge distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vrs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) AIR SC 2061 on the basis of the distinctive features between Sections 125 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, held that the appeal memorandum had contained the explanation for the delay for not filing the appeal within 30 days from the date of order of the writ petition and writ appeal being a continuation of the appeal, the pending appeal period was to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the petitioner could not have raised the ground of limitation in preferring appeal U/s.127 of I.E. Act in the writ court. 3.(b) On the second point, learned Single Judge has categorically held that the period of unauthorised use of electricity where ascertainable, 12 months period as provided U/s.126(5) of I.E. Act is not applicable to calculate the amount of unauthorised use of electricity and for that learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Gurpreet Kaur vrs. PSEB and others), (2013) AIR(P&H) 11. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. P.K. Tripathy also raised same two points and vociferously submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the decision rendered in the case of Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board (supra) and as the period of unauthorised use of Electricity could not have been ascertained, the calculation of penalty on the basis of the period of twelve 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection as done by the Assessing Authority could not have been negatived. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2, Mr. Sourya Sundar Das repelled the above contention on the ground stated in the impugned judgment. At the same breath, Mr. Das wanted us to set aside the impugned judgment and the appellate order exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. because of the fact that once the provision U/s.126 of I.E. Act has been resorted, the question of disconnection U/s. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 did not arise as decided in the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, SOUTHCO and another vrs. Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 . 5.(a) Both the learned counsel for the parties relied upon the decision of Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) and Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board (supra) and made us to read the law therefrom in the light of their submissions. 6. Keeping the jurisdiction of this writ appeal in view and materials placed and annexed to the writ petition, we bestow our thought over two points urged. The provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 are relevant and the two decisions cited by both the parties do not pose any problem for making it applicable to the facts of this case with the plain and unambiguous meaning and spirit of the Act. Judgment of a Court is not to be construed like statutes. The statement of Law enunciated in a judgment in determining the disputes is the ratio decidendi which carries the force of precedent for others. In Seetaram Rice Mill case, the meaning of "unauthorised use of electricity", has been analysed and is stated to construe purposively in contrast to conceptual interpretation. The ratio has been reiterated in para-87 of the decision. 7. The moot point in this case is, whether the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act was filed within the time specified therein i.e. 30 days. There is no dispute that the writ court had given liberty to prefer appeal within 30 days while disposing of the writ petition on 11.09.2012. Obviously due to availability of alternative remedy while the writ was not maintainable, liberty was granted to prefer statutory appeal within 30 days. The consumer-company challenged that order in a writ appeal and the same was disposed of on 20.12.2012. As quoted in the impugned judgment, the consumer obtained the certified copy on 21.01.2013 and filed appeal without delay. The said fact is analysed in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has taken a considered view that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, is attracted under such situation. 8. When liberty of 30 days for filing appeal was given by the writ court and the same was not upset in the writ appeal, the liberty so granted could not be said to be a lapsed-liberty. As such, the period so consumed was nothing but an access to a forum to prosecute with due diligence. 8. When liberty of 30 days for filing appeal was given by the writ court and the same was not upset in the writ appeal, the liberty so granted could not be said to be a lapsed-liberty. As such, the period so consumed was nothing but an access to a forum to prosecute with due diligence. The period during which the appeal was pending should be excluded U/s.14 of the Limitation Act. There is no reason to read the provisions of the Limitation Act, otherwise. The object of prescribing the limitation period U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would be frustrated if Section-29(2) of the Limitation Act is kept out of view. Once the Scheme of the Electricity Act in conjunction with the prescription of different limitation period for different forum in a different manner is read, it is unambiguously clear that the applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act is not excluded, save and except, the limitation period prescribed expressely. 8.(a) In that view of the matter, neither any absurdity nor any unreasonability is found in reading the statutes, both Electricity Act, 2003 and the Limitation Act, 1963, the way learned Single Judge read in the impugned judgment. We do not find any reason to subscribe a contrary view. 9. The crux point is whether the period of unauthorised use of electricity as detected during surprise inspection on 11.12.2010 was ascertainable, so that the assessment could be limited to that ascertained period instead of resorting to a limit of 12 months period. 9.(a) The relevant fact on this score may be seen from the provisional order of assessment. The Assessing Officer-cum-Executive Engineer has assigned the reason in support of his best judgment for unauthorised use of electricity vide Column-13 that "unauthorised abstracting of electricity by means of hooking of 33 KV line, which has been found by WESCO personnel on 11.12.2010". (underlined by us). 9.(b) In Column No.12 for taking 12 months limit, as a basis for calculation, it is stated that "the presumption that such unauthorised use has continued for a period of 12 months immediately before the date of inspection (in case of domestic and agricultural service and for a period of 12 months immediately before the date of inspection in the case of other services). As amended vide amendment Act, 2007 of I.E. Act, 2003. As amended vide amendment Act, 2007 of I.E. Act, 2003. 9.(c) Fact remains mentioned in the appeal order that the said provisional assessment was made absolute without giving opportunity of hearing to the consumer. The appellate authority has considered the dump report submitted by the Assessing Officer and calculated the unauthorised use of electricity for two months relying upon the data and rendering the technical know-how. In doing so, he worked out an objective assessment and the period was ascertained from the month of November 2010 till the time of its disconnection i.e. on 11.12.2010. 9.(d) It is noteworthy that as against the presumption of taking 12 months limit for calculation, the appellate authority has made objective assessment from the data. The objective assessment is scientific. The presumptive calculation has been taken away in the amendment of Section 126(5) of I.E. Act w.e.f. 15.06.2007. 9.(e) The present Section 126(5) of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007, provides the method of calculation taking 12 months limit only when the unauthorised use of electricity is not ascertainable. Prior to 15.06.2007, the said calculation was to be done by drawing presumption that such unauthorised use was continuing 12 months preceding the date of inspection, unless, the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. For better appreciation, the same is being quoted herein below:- 126(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 prior to its amendment 126(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 substituted by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorised use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the dates of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. 10. 10. Prior to amendment i.e. 15.06.2007, once the Assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that the unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, calculation of period could be made by raising presumption only. But after amendment, if such unauthorised use of electricity is ascertainable, the best judgment cannot be made for a period limited to 12 months. The remarkable situation after amendment is that the presumption and its rebuttal which was provided earlier, is no more available after amendment. The purpose is to keep such "unauthorised use of electricity" vide Explanation-(b) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 under a distinct identity separate from the "Theft of Electricity" under Section 135 of I.E. Act. 11. Tested in the touchstone of above analysis, the provisional assessment which was made final is found contrary to the Law made after Amendment Act, 2007. On the other hand, the assessment by the appellate authority is in accordance with law made after amendment. If such assessment is reasonable and scientific, and is not shown arbitrary or mala fide, no fault can be found with the same only because the consequence of such calculation is confined to a period less than 12 months. As an appellate authority, such ascertainment basing upon data is permissible. 12. Learned Single Judge has rightly accepted the assessment made by the appellate authority and the consequential direction given in that regard cannot be said illegal or unjustified. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment, as such no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.