JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a charitable institution registered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P7 final assessment order issued by the 1st respondent herein, alleging unauthorised use of electricity as well as misuse of electric connection. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner, it is stated, was holding an electricity connection under HT II Tariff. The connected load of electricity was to the extent of 120KVA. It is pointed out that, on account of increase in connected load to 300KVA, an appropriate application was preferred before the board for such enhancement as well as additional power allocation. The application was processed by the board and Ext.P2 dated 07.10.2015 was issued by the 2nd respondent. It may straightaway be noticed that, Ext.P2 has been issued with specific reference to the request made by the petitioner dated 18.10.2014. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner was directed to carry out the work required for the additional power allocation. It is pointed out that the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P2 had started the additional work also. 3. However, on 17.12.2015, an inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioner by the APTS. Ext.P3 is the Mahazar prepared pursuant to the said inspection. It is noticed that in Ext.P3 Mahazar, there is a specific endorsement to the effect that the security seals as regards the meter were intact and also that the meter was functioning properly. However, in the Mahazar, the fact that, an educational institution was running in the first floor of the building is recorded. 4. On the basis of Ext.P3 Mahazar, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner culminating in the issue of provisional assessment order dated 30.07.2016 produced as Ext.P4 in this writ petition. In the provisional assessment order, the allegation is to the effect that, there was an unauthorized additional load of 470.95 KVA and a misuse to the extend of 94.5 KVA. Ext.P5 is the provisional assessment bill forming part of Ext.P4 provisional assessment order. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection dated 04.08.2016 produced as Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, one of the main objections raised by the petitioner was with reference to the provisions under Regulation 155(9) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for short). Ext.P5 is the provisional assessment bill forming part of Ext.P4 provisional assessment order. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection dated 04.08.2016 produced as Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, one of the main objections raised by the petitioner was with reference to the provisions under Regulation 155(9) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for short). The petitioner had also raised various contentions with reference to the application of Regulation 153 (15) of the Code. However, by the impugned order at Ext.P7 dated 29.08.2016, the assessment was finalised by the 1st respondent herein, finalising the proposals contained in the provisional order. A total demand to the extent of Rs.30,12,016/- towards penal charges was raised against the petitioner. 5. It is aggrieved by the above Ext.P7 order, that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 6. A detailed counter affidavit dated 21.03.2023 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that, the petitioner is not justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, by passing the appellate remedy under Section 126 of the Electricity Supply Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Electricity Act’). It is further pointed out with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph and others [2022 (6) KLT Online 1054 (SC)], that reference to Regulation 153(15) of the Code cannot be had by the petitioner. 7. I have heard Sri.Wilson Urmese, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Ajit Joy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. Sri.Wilson Urmese, the counsel for the petitioner would contend as under: (i) The proceedings initiated by Ext.P5, which culminated in Ext.P7 order is beyond the period prescribed under Regulation 155 (9) of the Code. (ii) He points out to the definition of “unauthorized connected load” and “unauthorized use of electricity” under Section 2(78) and (79) of the Electricity Act. He contends that, insofar as, what is alleged against the petitioner is unauthorized use of additional load in the very same premises to which the connection was granted and for the very same purpose for which the connection was obtained, the treatment ought to have been under the provisions of Regulation 153(15) of the Code. 9. He contends that, insofar as, what is alleged against the petitioner is unauthorized use of additional load in the very same premises to which the connection was granted and for the very same purpose for which the connection was obtained, the treatment ought to have been under the provisions of Regulation 153(15) of the Code. 9. Sri.Ajit Joy, learned Standing Counsel would contend as under: (i) Writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioner in view of the provisions under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act. (ii) Provisions under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act are self-contained Codes in themselves. (iii) The provisions under Regulation 153(15) of the Code relied on by the petitioner cannot have any application in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph [2022 (6) KLT Online 1054 (SC)]. (iv) He also points out to the provisions of Section 50 of the Electricity Act, and contends that, insofar as “unauthorised use of electricity and billing” is not covered therein, the Code to the extent of providing for the provisions under Regulation 153 (15) cannot have any backing as held by the Supreme Court in the Judgment referred to above. (v) He also relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in Executive Engineer and Another v. Sri.Seetaram Rice Mill [2012 (2) KLT Suppl. 30 (SC) = 2011 KHC 4978] and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph [ (2023) 11 SCC 700 ]. 10. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 11. The admitted case is that the petitioner has obtained an electrical connection with 120KVA connected load. The petitioner had sought for enhancement to 300KVA. The said application is seen processed by Ext.P2. It is thereafter, on 17.12.2015, inspection was carried out by APTS and proceedings were initiated by Ext.P5 provisional assessment order. The petitioners’ objections at Ext.P6 led to the issue of Ext.P7 final assessment order. Instead of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 12. The following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition; (i) Whether the petitioner is justified in filing the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefits under Regulation 153 (15) of the Code? 12. The following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition; (i) Whether the petitioner is justified in filing the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefits under Regulation 153 (15) of the Code? (iii) Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 155 (9) would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand? 13. As regards, the first question-availability of alternate remedy-Sri.Ajit Joy would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Seetaram Rice Mill’s case (supra). 14. It is true that in the said judgment, the Apex Court had held that ordinarily, writ jurisdiction would not lie against the assessment under the provisions of the Electricity Act. However, in the case at hand, I notice that there are two differentiating circumstances. Firstly, the petitioner has specifically pointed out that, it had filed a detailed reply at Ext.P6, raising various contentions including the applicability or otherwise of Regulations 153(15) and 155(9) of the Code. However, the order at Ext.P7 do not show that there was an effective consideration of any of the said contentions. Insofar as, there is no effective consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner, I find that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, in which event, the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Secondly, it is also to be noticed that the captioned writ petition has been filed, as early as on 23.09.2016 and this Court had issued interim protection to the petitioner on 23.09.2016 itself. This writ petition has been pending consideration before this Court for the last eight years. In such circumstances, this Court may not be justified in relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy under the statute at this distance of time. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner can maintain the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The second issue for consideration is as to whether the benefits under Regulation 153(15) of the Code can be claimed by the petitioner. Sri.Wilson Urmese, would contend that, insofar as, the allegation against the petitioner was as regards “unauthorized additional load”, the treatment ought to have been under Regulation 153(15) of the Code. 15. The second issue for consideration is as to whether the benefits under Regulation 153(15) of the Code can be claimed by the petitioner. Sri.Wilson Urmese, would contend that, insofar as, the allegation against the petitioner was as regards “unauthorized additional load”, the treatment ought to have been under Regulation 153(15) of the Code. The said Regulation, it is true, provides that, the alleged unauthorised additional loads as per the sub-regulations (9) and (10) above shall be subject to realisation of a fee at the rates notified by the Commission in Schedule 1 of the Code. However, it is noticed that the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J. and others[ (2023) 11 SCC 700 ] had considered the impact of Regulation 153(15) of the Code. There, the Apex Court has referred to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and found that it is only with reference to certain specified situations, the State Electricity Commission can frame a regulation. It was found that insofar as, Section 50 of the Electricity Act does not cover "unauthorized use of electricity", the provisions under Regulation 153(15) of the Code “is thoroughly misconceived”. In paragraphs 63 to 65 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held as under: “63. Thus, reliance on Regulation 153(15) of the Code 2014 framed under Section 50 of the Act 2003 by the respondent(consumers) is thoroughly misconceived, as the same does not conform to the provisions of the Act 2003. In any event, Regulation 153(15) travels much beyond Section 126 and Section 50 reply of the Act 2003. It is settled law that the regulation making power cannot be used to bring into existence substantive rights, which are not contemplated under the Act 2003. 64. At this stage, it is apposite to state about the rule making powers of a delegating authority. If a rule goes beyond the rule making power conferred by the statute, the same has to be declared invalid. If a rule supplants any provision for which power has not been conferred, it becomes invalid. The basic test is to determine and consider the source of power, which is relatable to the rule. Similarly, a rule must be in accord with the parent statute, as it cannot travel beyond it. 65. If a rule supplants any provision for which power has not been conferred, it becomes invalid. The basic test is to determine and consider the source of power, which is relatable to the rule. Similarly, a rule must be in accord with the parent statute, as it cannot travel beyond it. 65. Delegated legislation has come to stay as a necessary component of the modern administrative process. Therefore, the question today is not whether there ought to be delegated legislation or not, but that it should operate under proper controls so that it may be ensured that the power given to the Administration is exercised properly; the benefits of the institution may be utilized, but its disadvantages minimized. The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a rule making body must function within the purview of the rule making authority conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body making rules or regulations has no inherent power of its own to make rules, but derives such power only from the statute, it has to necessarily function within the purview of the statute. Delegated legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent Act. If it does, it is ultra vires and cannot be given any effect. Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or statute law or the genera law; there may be noncompliance with the procedural requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires.” 16. In view of the above judgment, I find that Sri.Ajit Joy is justified in contending that, the petitioner may not be entitled to the benefits flowing out of Regulation 153(15) of the Code. 17. The last point arising for consideration would be, as to whether the petitioner can contend that the proceedings are barred by limitation prescribed under Regulation 155(9) of the Code. 17. The last point arising for consideration would be, as to whether the petitioner can contend that the proceedings are barred by limitation prescribed under Regulation 155(9) of the Code. Regulation 155(1) of the Code reads as under: “155.Provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Act.-(1) The assessment of amount for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act shall be done in accordance with the procedure specified in the following sub- regulations.” Thus, Regulation 155 provides for provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, with specific references to “unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126”. However, it is noticed that, the Code is framed under the powers available to the commission under Section 50 of the Electricity Act. 18. Section 50 of the Electricity Act reads as under: “50.The Electricity Supply Code.- The State Commission shall specify an Electricity Supply Code to provide for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for billing of electricity charges, disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment thereof, restoration of supply of electricity, measures for preventing tampering, distress or damage to electrical plant or electrical line or meter, entry of distribution licensee or any person acting on his behalf for disconnecting supply and removing the meter, entry for replacing, altering or maintaining electric lines or electrical plants or meter and such other matters.” 19. Section 50 of the Electricity Act, as noticed by the Apex Court, does not provide for making regulations with reference to “unauthorized use of electricity”. I find that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Paragraphs 63 to 65 of the judgment in Thomas Joseph’s case (supra) would apply to the claim of the petitioner with reference to Regulation 155(9) of the Code also. 20. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim that the assessment is hit by the time period prescribed under Regulation 155(9) of the Code. 21. However, I notice that in Ext.P6 objections filed by the petitioner to Ext.P5 provisional assessment order, the petitioner has raised various contentions apart from the submission on Regulations 153(15) and 155(9) of the Code. But as noticed earlier, the said contentions have not been considered by the 1st respondent while issuing the impugned order. As noticed earlier, “reasons” are the backbones of an order issued by an administrative authority. But as noticed earlier, the said contentions have not been considered by the 1st respondent while issuing the impugned order. As noticed earlier, “reasons” are the backbones of an order issued by an administrative authority. Insofar as Ext.P7 order lacks the said “reasons”, I am of the view that, the said order requires to be set aside and remitted back to the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to make any claims on the basis of Regulations 153(15) and 155(9) of the Code before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to pass a fresh assessment order, after hearing the petitioner and after taking into account the various contentions raised in Ext.P6 reply within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand disposed of as above.