JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the following direction has been sought: (I) The respondent may be directed to forthwith restore the electricity connection of the petitioner which has been illegally disconnected on 15.02.2019 on mere suspicion of theft of electricity, in absolute contravention of the specific provision of Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Clause 11.12 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2015 issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. (II) To quash the provisional assessment order issued by the respondent no.4 vide memo no.651 dated 19.02.2019 whereby and whereunder without following the provisions of Clause 11.12, 11.14 and 11.09 of the Supply Code Regulation 2015, without giving any opportunity of hearing, have imposed penalty upon the petitioner. (III) To quash the inspection report dated 15/16.02.2019 whereby and whereunder the respondents have prepared a concocted report with a sole purpose to any how book the petitioner for theft of electricity. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that electricity connection has been provided in the terms of the premises of the petitioner being Consumer No.CKU-2 under HTSS tariff having Contract Demand of 3000 KVA for running its unit and the electrical connection was energised on 02.07.2005. The respondent authority has recorded the meter reading on 04.12.2018 and in course of checking the modem was not communicating with Remote Meter Reading cell, therefore, the respondents replaced the SIM card and also brought the modem outside the meter room. Again the premises was visited on 06.02.2019 and they removed the seals affixed on meter room door, meter box and optical port. After verifying the entire metering installations the respondents took the meter reading and thereafter affixed new seals and therefore during the entire inspection no irregularity has been found by the team of the respondents but after nine days a team of the respondent-Nigam has visited the premises and on inspection a report was prepared alleging therein that a fixed part of the locking arrangement of the main meter and metering unit room door was found cut through which the consumer can easily open the door without disturbance of the seals. It has been further alleged that the paper seals of the main meter and metering unit room door was found duplicate. It has been further alleged that the paper seals of the main meter and metering unit room door was found duplicate. Further allegation that the CTs of metering unit was found shorted with a purpose to suppress the consumptions and accordingly on the basis of inspection report dated 15/16.02.2019 respondents have lodged F.I.R against the petitioner alleging theft of electricity vide Chakulia P.S. Case No.07 of 2019 registered under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and thereafter a provisional assessment has been made in consonance with the provision of Electricity Act vis a vis the Supply Code. 3. The petitioner has raised the following issues: (i) The provisional bill has wrongly been prepared for the period from 13.10.2018 to 15.02.2019 in place of from 06.02.2019 since the recording of the meter was conducted on 04.12.2018 and 06.02.2019 therefore the last date of inspection would be from 06.02.2019 and even if three is theft of electricity the provisional assessment ought to have been made from 06.02.2019 to 15.02.2019 but on what basis the assessment has been made from 13.10.2018 i.e. not known to the law. (ii) The calculation of the provisional assessment has been made by detecting its value “twice” wherefrom the assessment has been made by detecting the value “twice” the rate is not known to the law. (iii) The petitioner is ready to make payment an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- apart from current dues in order to run the factory. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who after calling upon by this Court, has filed counter affidavits and by placing it, it has been submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy taking into consideration his past conduct since right from the date of energizing the electricity, the electricity line has been disconnected several times due to non-payment of dues and for theft of electricity Four F.I.Rs have been instituted and therefore, the petitioner is the chronic defaulter and in the habit of committing theft of electricity. The issue which has been raised by the petitioner regarding legality and propriety of the provisional assessment, the same may not be looked into in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the provision of Section 154 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The issue which has been raised by the petitioner regarding legality and propriety of the provisional assessment, the same may not be looked into in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the provision of Section 154 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. So far as contention that the provisional assessment is wrong, having been calculated from 13.10.2018 to 15.02.2019 in place of 06.02.2019 to 15.02.2019 the same cannot be said to have any infirmity for the reason that although the meter reading was done on 04.12.2018 and 06.02.2019 but recording of meter has got no nexus with the commission of theft, if found to be detected by the inspection team. It has been submitted that the recording of meter is only to assess the consumption of electricity, having no power to conduct inspection while the inspection is to be made by the assessing officer by a body of person and therefore the date upon which the dues is to be realized will be 06.02.2019 the date when the meter reading report was submitted, the same cannot be treated for consideration of the provisional assessment rather in view of the applicability of the provision of making assessment as provided under the provision of Section 126 or 154(5) or Supply Code the assessment has been done which is in consonance with the provisions and hence there is no infirmity. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been shown much leniency even granting instalments for depositing the amount but time and again he has defaulted, not only that the petitioner has been found to be involved in theft of electricity and the present F.I.R is fourth one and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under the discretionary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavits and has submitted that the calculation made in the impugned assessment is absolutely improper and the respondents themselves are not consistent with their demand since they are raising the demand by raising the different quantum and therefore, it is a fit case that the relief sought for by the petitioner is fit to be allowed. 6. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having appreciated their arguments the issue which is to be tested by this Court is regarding: (i) Legality and propriety of the provisional assessment. (ii) Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a disputed question of fact? (iii) Whether the respondent can be directed to restore the electricity connection by directing the petitioner for making payment of Rs.Seventy Five Lakhs apart from the current charge? 7. It needs to refer herein that this Court has provided an opportunity to the petitioner for making payment of 50% of the amount assessed provisionally (impugned) but he has declined to accept this offer rather he has offered for making payment of Rs.Seventy Five lakhs apart from the current dues which the respondents have not agreed to, therefore, the matter, with the consent of the parties, has been heard on merit for its disposal. 8. This Court before dealing with the issues, deem it fit and proper to deal with the scope of enactment of Electricity Act, 2003 and the other relevant provisions which is required to be discussed in order to deal with the issues involved in this case. Prior to coming into effect of Electricity Act 2003, there were three enactments under the Electricity Supply Industry in India i.e. the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as Act, 1910, Act 1948 and Act 1998). 9. After a period of time the performance of Electricity Boards has deteriorated substantially on account of various factors, one of the factors was the theft of the electricity and in order to meet out the situation the provision of Section 126 has been incorporated in the new Act which provides a provision to deal with a situation of use of electricity unauthorisedly apart from the penalties to be imposed on account of theft of electricity as per the provision made under Section 135. Section 126 reads as under: “126.Assessment-(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or uses, 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 unauthorized 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 unauthorized 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 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 person or authority or licensee concerned; 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 authorised.” The definition of “unauthorized use of electricity” with explanation ‘(b)’ of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is as follows:- “(b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity- (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized 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 authorized; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.” Part XIV 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 authorized, 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 find 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 authorized 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 there from 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.” Reference needs to be made herein of a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 . In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Apex Court has occasion 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. While dealing with the issue it has been laid down at para 24 to 30 which reads as under: “24. Upon their plain reading, the marked 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. 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 (1-A) 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 authorised 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 “unauthorised 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 “unauthorised 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. 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 Part 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. Thus, it would be clear that the expression “unauthorised use of electricity” under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorised use, even in the 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 authorisation, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under Section 135 of the Act. 30. 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 authorisation, 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 unauthorised 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 unauthorised use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act.” It is further evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) wherein while considering the acts enumerated under Section 135 of the aforesaid Act, 2003 with reference to the word “dishonesty” occurring at the commencement of Section 135 of the Act 2003 and if the dictionary meaning of the word “dishonest” would be taken, at paragraph 35 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “35. All these explanations clearly show that dishonesty is a state of mind where a person does an act with an intent to deceive the other, acts fraudulently and with a deceptive mind, to cause wrongful loss to the other. The act has to be of the type stated under sub-sections (1)(a) to (1)(e) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. If these acts are committed and that state of mind, mens rea, exists, the person shall be liable to punishment and payment of penalty as contemplated under the provisions of the 2003 Act. In contradistinction to this, the intention is not the foundation for invoking powers of the competent authority and passing of an order of assessment under Section 126 of the 2003 Act.” So far as ambit and scope of Section 126 with reference to word “unauthorized use” means at paragraph 37 to 41 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “37. Wherever the assessing officer arrives at 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 such period cannot be ascertained, it shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and the assessment shall be made at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service specified under these provisions. This computation has to be taken in terms of Sections 126(5), 126(6) and 127 of the 2003 Act. The complete procedure is provided under these sections. Right from the initiation of the proceedings till preferring of an appeal against the final order of assessment and termination thereof, as such, it is a complete code in itself. 38. We have already indicated that the provisions of Section 126 do not attract the principles of criminal jurisprudence including mens rea. These provisions primarily relate to unauthorised use of electricity and the charges which would be payable in terms thereof. To determine the controversy in the present case, it will be essential to examine the implication of the expression “unauthorised use of electricity” as contained in Explanation (b) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. 39. In order to explain these expressions, it will be necessary for us to refer to certain other provisions and the Regulations as well. These expressions have to be understood and given meaning with reference to their background and are incapable of being fairly understood, if examined in isolation. It is always appropriate to examine the words of a statute in their correct perspective and with reference to relevant statutory provisions. The expression “unauthorised use of electricity” on its plain reading means use of electricity in a manner not authorised by the licensee of the Board. “Authorisation” refers to the permission of the licensee to use of electricity, subject to the terms and conditions for such use and the law governing the subject. 40. To put it more aptly, the supply of electricity to a consumer is always subject to the provisions of the 2003 Act, State Acts, Regulations framed thereunder and the terms and conditions of supply in the form of a contract or otherwise. 40. To put it more aptly, the supply of electricity to a consumer is always subject to the provisions of the 2003 Act, State Acts, Regulations framed thereunder and the terms and conditions of supply in the form of a contract or otherwise. Generally, when electricity is consumed in violation of any or all of these, it would be understood as “unauthorised use of electricity”. But this general view will have to be examined in the light of the fact that the legislature has opted to explain this term for the purposes of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The said provision, along with the Explanation, reads as under: “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 unauthorised 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 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. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff 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 person or authority or licensee concerned; 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 authorised.” 41. The “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity by the means and for the reasons stated in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 126 of the 2003 Act. Some of the illustratively stated circumstances of “unauthorised use” in the section cannot be construed as exhaustive. The “unauthorised use of electricity” would mean what is stated under that Explanation, as well as such other unauthorised user, which is squarely in violation of the abovementioned statutory or contractual provisions.” It is thus evident that the supply of electricity to a consumer is always subject to the provisions of the 2003 Act, State Acts regulations from there under and the terms and conditions of supply in the form of a contract or otherwise, when electricity consumed in violation of any or of these it would be understood as unauthorized use of electricity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has dealt with the meaning of unauthorized use of electricity which reads as under: “41. The “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity by the means and for the reasons stated in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 126 of the 2003 Act. Some of the illustratively stated circumstances of “unauthorised use” in the section cannot be construed as exhaustive. The “unauthorised use of electricity” would mean what is stated under that Explanation, as well as such other unauthorised user, which is squarely in violation of the abovementioned statutory or contractual provisions. 42. Some of the illustratively stated circumstances of “unauthorised use” in the section cannot be construed as exhaustive. The “unauthorised use of electricity” would mean what is stated under that Explanation, as well as such other unauthorised user, which is squarely in violation of the abovementioned statutory or contractual provisions. 42. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn.) defines “unauthorised” as “done without the authority, made without actual, implied or apparent authority”. “Unauthorised” is a concept well recognised under different statutes, for example, under Section 31-A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the DDA Act) the authority has the power to seal the “unauthorised” development, if the misuser of the premises would come within the ambit of unauthorised development. But if such misuse does not come within the ambit of “unauthorised development”, such power is not available to the authority. Simpliciter misuse, therefore, may not fall within the ambit of unauthorised development under the provisions of the DDA Act. 43. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India this Court held that if the misuse was in violation of the permission, approval or sanction or in contravention of any conditions, subject to which the said permission/approval has been granted in terms of Section 30 of the DDA Act, then it will be “unauthorised use”. We have primarily referred to this case to support the reasoning that “unauthorised development” is one which is contrary to a master plan or zonal development plan as was the case under the DDA Act. Just as the right to develop a property is controlled by the restrictions of law as well as the terms and conditions of the permission granted for that purpose, the use of electricity is similarly controlled by the statutory provisions and the terms and conditions on which such permission is granted to use the electricity. 44. The unauthorised use of electricity in the manner as is undisputed on record clearly brings the respondent “under liability and in blame” within the ambit and scope of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The blame is in relation to excess load while the liability is to pay on a different tariff for the period prescribed in law and in terms of an order of assessment passed by the assessing officer by the powers vested in him under the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. 45. The blame is in relation to excess load while the liability is to pay on a different tariff for the period prescribed in law and in terms of an order of assessment passed by the assessing officer by the powers vested in him under the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. 45. The expression “means” used in the definition clause of Section 126 of the 2003 Act can have different connotations depending on the context in which such expression is used. In terms of Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn.) p. 1001, “mean” is—“of or relating to an intermediate point between two points or extremes” and “meaning” would be “the sense of anything, but esp. of words; that which is conveyed”. The word ordinarily includes a mistaken but reasonable understanding of a communication. “Means” by itself is a restrictive term and when used with the word “includes”, it is construed as exhaustive. In those circumstances, a definition using the term “means” is a statement of literal connotation of a term and the courts have interpreted “means and includes” as an expression defining the section exhaustively. It is to be kept in mind that while determining whether a provision is exhaustive or merely illustrative, this will have to depend upon the language of the section, scheme of the Act, the object of the legislature and its intent. 46. “Purposive construction” is certainly a cardinal principle of interpretation. Equally true is that no rule of interpretation should either be overstated or overextended. Without being overextended or overstated, this rule of interpretation can be applied to the present case. It points to the conclusion that an interpretation which would attain the object and purpose of the Act has to be given precedence over any other interpretation which may not further the cause of the statute. The development of law is particularly liberated both from literal and blinkered interpretation, though to a limited extent. 47. The precepts of interpretation of contractual documents have also undergone a wide-ranged variation in the recent times. The result has been subject to one important exception to assimilate the way in which such documents are interpreted by Judges on the common sense principle by which any serious utterance would be interpreted by ordinary life. 47. The precepts of interpretation of contractual documents have also undergone a wide-ranged variation in the recent times. The result has been subject to one important exception to assimilate the way in which such documents are interpreted by Judges on the common sense principle by which any serious utterance would be interpreted by ordinary life. In other words, the common sense view relating to the implication and impact of provisions is the relevant consideration for interpreting a term of document so as to achieve temporal proximity of the end result. 48. Another similar rule is the rule of practical interpretation. This test can be effectually applied to the provisions of a statute of the present kind. It must be understood that an interpretation which upon application of the provisions at the ground reality, would frustrate the very law should not be accepted against the common sense view which will further such application. 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. 51. The primary object of the expression “means” is intended to explain the term “unauthorised use of electricity” which, even from the plain reading of the provisions of the 2003 Act or on a common sense view cannot be restricted to the examples given in the Explanation. The legislature has intentionally omitted to use the word “includes” and has only used the word “means” with an intention to explain inter alia what an unauthorised use of electricity would be. The legislature has intentionally omitted to use the word “includes” and has only used the word “means” with an intention to explain inter alia what an unauthorised use of electricity would be. It must be noticed that clause (iv) of Explanation (b) and sub-section (5) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act were both amended/substituted by the same amending Act 26 of 2007, with a purpose and object of preventing unauthorised use of electricity not amounting to theft of electricity within the meaning of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. This amendment, therefore, has to be given its due meaning which will fit into the scheme of the 2003 Act and would achieve its object and purpose. 52. The expression “means” would not always be open to such a strict construction that the terms mentioned in a definition clause under such expression would have to be inevitably treated as being exhaustive. There can be a large number of cases and examples where even the expression “means” can be construed liberally and treated to be inclusive but not completely exhaustive of the scope of the definition, of course, depending upon the facts of a given case and the provisions governing that law.” The meaning of word “means” as has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V Muthu vs. Angamuthu Ammal reported in (1997) 2 SCC 53 wherein at paragraph 10 the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the word “means” as follows: “10. Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the word “means” has been used to specify the members, namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependant parent, who would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which various terms have been defined, opens with the words “in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires” which indicates that the definitions, as for example that of “family”, which are indicated to be conclusive may not be treated to be conclusive if it was otherwise required by the context. Section 2 of the Act in which various terms have been defined, opens with the words “in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires” which indicates that the definitions, as for example that of “family”, which are indicated to be conclusive may not be treated to be conclusive if it was otherwise required by the context. This implies that a definition, like any other word in a statute, has to be read in the light of the context and scheme of the Act as also the object for which the Act was made by the legislature.” The word dishonestly as defined under Section 135 also needs to be dealt with, the word dishonestly defined under section 24 of the Indian Penal Code states that the word judicial does intent that the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly. In the case of Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of U.P reported in AIR 1966 SC 523 the Hon’ble Apex Court has defined the word dishonestly, as a person who does intent with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. In another judgment in the case of Ramratan and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 926 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a person is said to do a thing dishonestly when he does intent with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to one person. 10. As per the provision of Sub section 2 to 5 of Section 126 of the Act the order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the persons in occupation or possession or in charge of the place of premises in such manner as may be prescribed while the procedure is also contemplated in the case of theft following under any of the Acts, enumerated under Section 135(1) a 2(e). Part XIV of the Electricity Act, 2003 relates to offences and penalties and Section 135 provides theft of electricity. Part XIV of the Electricity Act, 2003 relates to offences and penalties and Section 135 provides theft of electricity. Section 135(1) provides that whoever dishonestly, 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 tampers a meter or installs or use a tampered meter which enforce with accurate and provide registered, calibration or metering of electricity current or otherwise relates in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted, damages or destroys electric meter, 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. Section 135(2) provides that any officer, authorized in this behalf by the State Government, may enter, inspect, break upon and storage any place or premises in which he has reason to play with electricity is used unauthorisedly, and search and seized remove of such devices, instruments, wires or article which has been or is being used for unauthorized use of electricity. Under Section 135(4) the provisions of the Code of criminal procedure, relating to search and seizure, shall apply to searches and seizure under the Act. Under Section 147 the penalties imposed under Electricity Act, 2003 shall be in addition to and not in derogation to, any liability in respect of payment of compensation. Part XV relates to special courts and Section 153 to the constitution of special courts. Under Section 153(1) the State Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offence, refer to in section 135 to 139 by notification in the official gazette, constitute as many special courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification. Section 154 prescribes the procedure and power of special courts and under sub section (1) every offence punishable under Section 135 to 139, shall be triable only by the special courts. Section 154 prescribes the procedure and power of special courts and under sub section (1) every offence punishable under Section 135 to 139, shall be triable only by the special courts. Section 154(4) enables the special court to 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 tarrif rate applicable for a period of twelve months providing 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 decreed to the civil court. In the explanation of Section 154 “civil liability” is defined to mean the loss or damage incurred by the Board or the licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to commission of an offence referred under Section 135 to 131. Here it also needs to refer the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tinsukhia Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 709 where at para 118 and 120 it has been laid down that the provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative, which reads as under: “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. 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.” The factual aspects involved in this case is now been examined in order to answer the issues raised by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner needs to be reflected: Dates Particulars 02.07.2005 M/s Sukh Sagar Metals (P) Ltd. is a 33 KV HTSS consumer having contract demand of 3000 KVA since 02.07.2005. 07.06.2006 Line of petitioner was first disconnected due to non-payment of dues. 13.06.2006 Letter was issued vide letter no.475 dated 13.06.2006 for granting of ten installments of Rs.54,00,270/- 15.06.2006 Line was reconnected after the payment of 1st installment i.e. Rs.5,40,027/- with RC + DC. 28.09.2006 Again connection was disconnected because of non-payment of installment amount. 17.11.2006 Line was again reconnected by granting twelve no. of installment vide Chief Engineer (C & R) letter no.910 dated 16.11.2006 22.01.2007 A team of officer visited the premises of petitioner for inspection. During inspection additional wires, circuitry and radio frequency receiver were found soldered inside the meter. F.I.R. was lodged for committing theft and the line was disconnected on the same day. 23.02.2007 Line of petitioner was reconnected as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13.02.2007. Provisional Bill of Rs.2,64,09,207/- was issued against theft of energy. 06.08.2008 Line was again disconnected on 06.08.2008 because 13 no. of cheques deposited by consumer were dishonoured. 03.10.2008 50 nos. of installment was granted vide C.E. (C & R) Letter No.883 dated 03.10.2008 for Rs.3,03,38,507/- 02.12.2008 Payment of 1st installment was made of Rs.06,06,770/- 10.12.2008 Line was again reconnected. 09.11.2010 Again a team of officer visited the petitioner premises and theft was detected. 2nd FIR was lodged and line was disconnected. 20.01.2011 Line was reconnected by the order of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 27.01.2011 Notice was issued to the petitioner vide T.O. Letter No.212 dated 27.01.2011 for paymet of Rs.42,34,634/- against the current bill for 09/10, 10/10, 11/10. 15.02.2011 Payment was not paid by the petitioner on time, so the connection was disconnected on 15.02.2011. 17.02.2011 Again the line was reconnected after the payment of Rs.42,34,634/- along with RC+DC. 15.02.2011 Payment was not paid by the petitioner on time, so the connection was disconnected on 15.02.2011. 17.02.2011 Again the line was reconnected after the payment of Rs.42,34,634/- along with RC+DC. 23.02.2011 Petitioner did not make the payment as per the agreement and to escape from disconnection a case was filed before Hon’ble VUSNF vide case No.11/2011 which was granted on 23.02.2011. Against the order of the Hon’ble VUSNF dated 08.03.2014 a case was filed by the Board before the Hon’ble Ombudsman. 27.09.2014 In the meantime the petitioner again defaulted on its payments and a 15 days disconnection notice was issued to the petitioner dated 27.09.2014. 16.10.2014 Again the line of the petitioner was disconnected due to non-payment of dues. 13.11.2014 A direction from MD, JBVNL, Ranchi was received on 13.11.2014 in which it was directed that the power of M/s Sukh Sagar Metals (P) Ltd., CKU-2 may be restored subject to deposition of Rs.60 lacs along with RC+DC charges. 16.11.2014 Petitioner was granted installments wherein they were directed to pay Rs.10 lacs against arrear along with monthly bills and accordingly line was restored on 16.11.2014 after payment of Rs.60 lacs along with RC+DC charges 07.11.2014 Order was received in which order of the Hon’ble VUSNF was confirmed by the Ombudsman. 09.06.2016 Meter tampering was detected and an 3rd FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 09.06.2016 as per the test report of CPRI, Bhopal. 02.02.2017 A 15 days Notice under section 56 was issued vide letter no.181 dated 02.02.2017 for deposition of Rs.10 lacs installment. 18.02.2017 Petitioner submitted letter regarding objection against demand notice. 27.02.2017 A letter was issued vide letter no.363 dated 27.02.2017 to the petitioner for clearly confirm issues in bill amount as this office found no any mistake in calculation chart and cannot verify it from out end. 15.03.2017 A Notice was issued under section 56 from the office vide letter no.492 dated 15.03.2017 for deposition of dues. 25.09.2017 Again a Notice was issued u/s 56 vide letter no.1942 dated 25.09.2017 for deposition of dues amount. 11.10.2017 Line was disconnected on 11.10.2017 due to non-payment of the dues. 05.10.2018 A letter was issued by C.E (C & R), JBVNL, Ranchi vide letter no.1307 dated 05.10.2018 instructed the office for grant of instalment to the petitioner company for payment of dues as per the following terms. 11.10.2017 Line was disconnected on 11.10.2017 due to non-payment of the dues. 05.10.2018 A letter was issued by C.E (C & R), JBVNL, Ranchi vide letter no.1307 dated 05.10.2018 instructed the office for grant of instalment to the petitioner company for payment of dues as per the following terms. 05.10.2018 A per the terms the petitioner deposited Rs.50 lacs and a fresh agreement was executed on 05.10.2018 vide T.O. Memo No.3314 dated 05.10.2018. 10.10.2018 Accordingly the line was restored on 10.10.2018. 15/16.02.2019 An inspection team visited the premises of petitioner and detected theft of energy. 16.02.2019 4th FIR has been lodged under section-135/138 of Indian Electricity Act vide Chakulia P.S. Case No.07/2019 dated 16.02.2019 and line was disconnected. 19.02.2019 Loss amount has been assessed Rs.1,84,38,240/- (One Crore, Eighty Four lacs, Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Forty) and letter was circulated to the petitioner company vide letter No.651 dated 19.02.2019. 12. The present writ petition has been filed after institution of the FIR vide Chakulia P.S. Case No.07 of 2019. This Court is not making any observation about the merit of the F.I.R for the reason that the same is not subject matter of the trial and that is also not the subject matter herein rather only issue about the legality and propriety of the provisional assessment order has been raised. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the date of provisional assessment ought to have been made from 06.02.2019 to 15.02.2019 and not from 13.02.2019 on the basis of the fact that the matter rejecting report was submitted first on 04.12.2018 and second on 06.02.2019. Now the question is whether the recording of the matter can be said to be an inspection in the eye of law, for which the reference needs to be made Clause 9.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2015 and for ready reference the same is being referred herein: “9.3 Reading of Meters 9.3.1 The meter shall be read once in every billing cycle and the consumer shall extend all facilities to the Distribution Licensee or his authorized representatives to read the meter. 9.3.2 The meter shall be read by an authorized representative of the Distribution Licensee. The Distribution Licensee shall issue proper photo identity cards to all meter readers and meter readers shall carry the photo identity card during the course of meter reading. 9.3.2 The meter shall be read by an authorized representative of the Distribution Licensee. The Distribution Licensee shall issue proper photo identity cards to all meter readers and meter readers shall carry the photo identity card during the course of meter reading. 9.3.3 The meter reader may use hand held instruments, meter reading instrument (MRI) or wireless equipment for recording meter readings and for generation of bills on the spot. If bills are prepared on the basis of MRI downloads or if meter reading is taken on the basis of remote meter-reading and the consumer wishes to have a record of the reading taken, he shall be allowed so by the Distribution Licensee.” The Clause 11 dealt with theft and unauthorized use of electricity which speaks hereunder as: “11 Theft and Unauthorised Use of Electricity 11.1 Whenever a case of theft of energy is detected, the Authorised Officer shall carry out assessment, in accordance with the procedure as laid down in the sections below: Procedure for booking a case of theft of electricity 11.2. The Distribution Licensee shall publish the list of the Authorised Officers prominently in all the Offices and the Photo Identity Card issued to such officers shall indicate so. 11.3 An Authorised Officer, suo motu or on receipt of reliable information regarding theft of electricity shall promptly conduct inspection of such premises. 11.4 The inspection team of the Distribution Licensee or supplier, headed by such Authorised Officer shall carry along with them their Photo Identity Cards. Photo Identity Card should be shown to the consumer/consumer representative before entering the premises. Photo Identity Card of the Authorised Officer shall clearly indicate that he has been nominated as Authorised Officer as per provisions of Section 135 of the Act. 11.5 The Authorised Officer shall prepare a report giving details such as connected load, condition of meter seals, working of meter and mention any irregularity noticed (such as tampered meter, artificial means adopted for theft of energy). 11.6 The report shall clearly indicate whether sufficient evidence substantiating the fact that theft of energy was found or not. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report.” 13. 11.6 The report shall clearly indicate whether sufficient evidence substantiating the fact that theft of energy was found or not. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report.” 13. It is evident that the procedure of reading of meters and procedure for booking a case of theft of electricity are two different fields and if a meter reading report is there, that cannot be construed to be inspection in terms of the procedure for booking a case of theft as provided under Clause 11.2 of the Regulation, 2015 and, therefore, the plea which has been taken by the petitioner that the meter reading report is to be taken as a date for assessing the provisional assessment is not acceptable to this Court, accordingly rejected. Admittedly herein, the FIR was instituted on 15.02.2019 and, therefore, the assessment of the use of electricity is to be made on the basis of the procedure as stipulated under Section 154(4) of Act, 2003 and Clause No.11.24 and 11.25 which speaks as follows: “11.24 In case of the decision based on the consumer’s reply/hearing wherein the case of theft is not established, no further proceedings shall be required and electricity connection shall be restored through original meter. 11.25 Where it is established that there is a case of theft of energy based on the consumer’s reply/hearing, the Authorised Officer shall assess the energy consumption as per the assessment formula given in Annexure 19 to these Regulations, for the entire period during which such theft of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and prepare an assessment order on applicable tariff as per the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 and any subsequent amendments, and serve on the person under proper receipt.” It is evident that the provision as made under Clause 11.24 and 11.25 of the Supply Code is para materia to the provision of 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. So far as it relates to the process of assessment, which also speaks that if the date of unauthorized use of electricity is not ascertained the assessment is to be made limited to twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection and the other provision of calculating it as per the provision as contained in sub section 6 of Section 126 wherein it has been provided that the assessment under the section shall be made at a rate equal to “twice” the tariff applicable for the relevant record of services specified in sub section 5. It is not in dispute that the civil liability is to be determined under the provision of Section 154 (5) and (6) of the Act 2003 but it does not mean that the provisional assessment cannot be assailed by the aggrieved by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to scrutinize the legality of the calculation made in the provisional assessment and therefore, this Court in order to come to the logical ends regarding legality and propriety in making the calculation of provisional assessment, as impugned, has entertained the writ petition. 14. This Court after going across the provision of Section 126 read with Section 154(5) and the provision made under Clause 11.24 and 11.25 of the Supply Code 2015 is of the view that the provisional assessment has been made on the basis of the procedure provided therein by assessing the amount for the period of 12 months from the date of institution of F.I.R and twice the rate, therefore, the same cannot be said to be improper calculation. It needs to refer herein that Section 154 of the Act 2003 enables a person indulging in theft of electricity to be punished by the special court in addition to the power to punish a person indulging in theft of electricity, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. It needs to refer herein that Section 154 of the Act 2003 enables a person indulging in theft of electricity to be punished by the special court in addition to the power to punish a person indulging in theft of electricity, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The special court under section 154(5) is also empowered to 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 the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft, if determined whichever is less. The criminal and civil liability under section 154 or assessment either provisional or final, under section 126 for unauthorized use of electricity cannot be read as denuding the inspecting officer ancillary and incidental power to disconnect power supply if, on inspection, he finds that electricity is being used unauthorisedly. 15. In view thereof, this Court while holding that there is no illegality in the provisional assessment made by the respondent authorities, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. However, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the issue pertaining to quantum of assessment after the outcome of the criminal case as instituted against him which is the subject matter of disconnection. 16. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.