JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present appeal preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of judgment and order dated 21.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10579 of 2017. 2. The prayers as prayed for by the appellant-original petitioner in the writ-petition was to issue writ/ order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 8.9.2016 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar vide order No. CEI/INS/APL/2016/10271. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments and averments made by both the sides, was pleased to dismiss the writ-petition by way of an order dated 21.8.2017, which is assailed in the present appeal. 4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ- petition is that the respondent was having an Industrial Connection in Plot No. 5202 in third phase, GIDC, Vapi, Valsad with contract demand of 2800 KVA. The connection was checked by the Installation Checking Squad on 4.7.2015. It was found that the connection was released in Plot No. 5202 and respondent was using 749.20 HP load of boiler auxiliaries in Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2 without prior legal permission of the petitioner. As per the checking sheet, respondent had unauthorisedly extended power boundary, which amounted to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126(B)(V) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Pursuant thereto, respondent was issued provisional bill for Rs.66,01,215.89 ps, vide letter dated 6.7.2015. 5. Pursuant to the issuance of provisional bill, respondent was called upon to make representation within a span of 7 days. The respondent made written submission on 20.7.2015 and was given hearing on 27.7.2015 and 28.7.2015. It was the case of the respondent that respondent had applied for power boundary extension vide application dated 20.10.2012, which was received by the petitioner on 4.12.2012. It was the case of the respondent that they have got permission of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) and Electrical Inspector for new set-up in adjoining Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2. The request was also made for power boundary extension on 4.12.2012 to the petitioner. There was no response from the petitioner. There was bonafide on the part of the respondent. However, overlooking the submission made by the respondent, a final bill came to be issued on 30.7.2015 to the tune of Rs.66,01,215.89 ps. 5302/1 and 5302/2. The request was also made for power boundary extension on 4.12.2012 to the petitioner. There was no response from the petitioner. There was bonafide on the part of the respondent. However, overlooking the submission made by the respondent, a final bill came to be issued on 30.7.2015 to the tune of Rs.66,01,215.89 ps. 6. Pursuant to the final bill, the respondent preferred Appeal under Section 127 fo the Act before the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority, by way of an order dated 8.9.2016, decided the appeal and quashed and set- aside the final bill and directed the petitioner to issue fresh bill for 749.20 HP for 16 hours. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the appellate authority being Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar, dated 8.9.2016, the petitioner preferred writ-petition before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 10579 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, by way of order dated 21.8.2017 dismissed the writ-petition, which is now assailed in the present Appeal. 7. We have heard Ms. Lilu Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Bhargavi G. Thakar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 8. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the grant of electrical connection was in the premises comprising of Plot No. 5202, whereas at the time of checking it was found that respondent was using the electricity in a different premises comprising of Plot Nos. 5301/1 and 5302/2. Therefore, it was a clear case of unauthorised use of electricity which attracts the provisions of Section 126(6) of the Act. The appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in reducing the bill for actual usage of 16 hours only, when it was a case of unauthorised use of electricity. It was further submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellate that the learned Single Judge has clearly erred in interpreting the provisions of the Act. Merely because the respondent had purchased the adjoining Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2, it would not entitle them to extend electricity connection to the new premises without any formal application for new connection for the same. Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellate that the learned Single Judge has clearly erred in interpreting the provisions of the Act. Merely because the respondent had purchased the adjoining Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2, it would not entitle them to extend electricity connection to the new premises without any formal application for new connection for the same. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the permission of GIDC for extension of the boundary does not entitle the consumer to use electricity without the permission of the electricity Company. 9. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has erred in interpretion of the word “Premises” as defined under Section 2(51) of the Act. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that Section 126 of the Act is not attracted in the instant case. Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant submits that on bare perusal of Section 126(6) and more particularly, clause (v) of Sub-clause (b) of Explanation to sub-section (6) of Section 126 would be attracted as the respondent was using electricity in the premises other than that for which the supply of electricity was authorised by granting connection. 10. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in: (i) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Packing Well in LPA No. 1368 of 2018 dated 16.7.2021 (ii) Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited and Another v. Shri Seetar Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 11. Per contra, Ms. Bhargavi Thakar, holding brief of Mr. Gunvant Thakar, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the contention of Ms. Bhaya with the submission that originally the respondent had authorised electricity connection for Plot No. 5202. The respondent had installed boiler for operating Steam Turbines of CGP in the said Plot. On 23.8.2011, the boiler installed at Plot No. 5202 suddenly bursted leading to unexpected shut-down of CGP and manufacturing activities. The respondent, therefore, had obtained additional power to continue manufacturing activities and extended its contract demand to 3100 KVA. Further, the respondent had suffered substantial damage due to bursting of the Steam boiler and, therefore, it had decided to shift the Boiler House from the manufacturing unit to the separate plots located near the existing manufacturing unit. The respondent had taken Plot Nos. Further, the respondent had suffered substantial damage due to bursting of the Steam boiler and, therefore, it had decided to shift the Boiler House from the manufacturing unit to the separate plots located near the existing manufacturing unit. The respondent had taken Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2 on lease to set-up a new Boiler House over the same. It was, in these circumstances, the boiler was relocated to the adjoining Plots belonging to the respondent only. The approval of the Electical Inspector was also taken by way of the communication dated 3.10.2012. 12. The respondent had also applied for extending the power boundary of the HT connection on 4.12.2012 before commencing utilisation of power for the Boiler House in the new set-up. The request made by the communication dated 4.12.2012 had not been refused by the appellant. The contention is that the final assessment order dated 30.7.2015 is not justified as it is not a case of unauthorised use of electricity under 126(6) of the Act. 13. Considering the arguments raised by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, we may note that certain factual aspects are not in dispute. The respondent had applied for electricity connection in the premises comprising of Plot No. 5202. No connection or permission had been obtained for electricity connection in Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2 purchased later. It is accepted that due to bursting of the boiler, it was shifted to adjacent Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2, whereas there was no authorised electricity connection in the said premises. The respondent had made an application for extension of power boundary when there is no such statutory provision. 14. Further, as per the statutory scheme in the matter of supply of electricity to consumers, the definition of ‘consumer’, ‘premises’ and ‘supply’ under Section 2 (15), (51) and (70) are relevant to be noted herein: “2(15): ‘consumer’ means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be. 2(51): ‘Premises’ includes any land, building or structure.” “2(70): ‘Supply’ in relation to electricity, means the sale of electricity to a licensee or consumer.” 15. Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to any premises, on an application by the owner or occupier of such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. It is stated in the proviso to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 43 that the distribution licensee is required to provide requisite infrastructure for giving electricity supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) of Section 43 provides consequences of failure of the distribution licensee to supply the electricity within the period specified under sub-section (1) in the form of penalty. 16. From the reading of the above provisions, it can be discerned that a consumer is a person to whom the electricity is supplied with respect to a premises, on an application filed by him and would include any person whose premises are being connected for the purpose of electricity supply. Section 126(6) Explanation (b)(v) clearly provides the meaning of “un-authorised use of electricity” which means the usage of electricity for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised. For ready reference, Section 126(6) Explanation (b)(v) is extracted herein-under: “126(6) Explanation (b)(v): for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.” 17. In light of the above provisions, when the facts of the instant case are examined, it is evident that usage of electricity supply in two plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/3 acquired by the respondent later without the legal permission of the petitioner company, resulted in unauthorised use of electricity. The electricity connection was released for plot No. 5202 and could have been used by the respondent consumer only within the said premises. The factum of shifting of the boiler to another premises namely plot No. 5302/1 and 5302/2 on account of the accident, if any, has no concern with the appellant department. In any case, for the usage of electricity in a new premises, namely the plot No. 5302/1 and 5302/2, a separate application was required to be submitted to obtain the electricity connection with regard to the said premises. In any case, for the usage of electricity in a new premises, namely the plot No. 5302/1 and 5302/2, a separate application was required to be submitted to obtain the electricity connection with regard to the said premises. In any case, the instant case falls within the four corners of Section 126(6) Explanation (b)(v) and being a proven case of unauthorised use of the electricity, no infirmity can be found in the decision of the competent authority in registering a case of unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126(6) Explanation (b)(v) and serving a provisional bill to the petitioner for assessment for consumption of electricity unauthorisedly. 18. The learned single Judge has erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 126(6) Explanation (b)(v) and referring to Section 126(5) to record an opinion that it is doubtful as to how the use of energy can be said to be unauthorised and how Section 126 could be attracted. The conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge that the electricity supply as per the contract demand was being used for the same purpose and for the same organisation, and the consumption of the electricity is labeled as unauthorised only on the basis of concept of power boundary extension, is in clear ignorance of the statutory provisions. The learned single Judge has erred in holding that because the electricity supply by the licensee has been used for the boiler in the adjoining land having a separate number or the revenue number, cannot become unauthorize, is a result of misreading of the provisions and, ignorance of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, specifically Section 126 of the said Act. 19. For the aforesaid, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a proven case of unauthorised use of electricity. Consequentially, we allow the present appeal by setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned single Judge as also the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the appellate authority dated 8.9.2016 passed in Appeal No. 10271 of 2016. 20. Consequentially, we allow the present appeal by setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned single Judge as also the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the appellate authority dated 8.9.2016 passed in Appeal No. 10271 of 2016. 20. As a result of the above, the appellants are required to serve the final bill alongwith the calculation sheet to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today, who shall be under obligation to make the payment towards consumption of unauthorised electricity within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the final bill. However, the respondent would be at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal as per Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the order passed in the instant appeal, shall not come in its way. In case of non-payment of the dues raised under the aforesaid bill within the time indicated therein, it would be open for the appellant to proceed in accordance with law. 21. With the above, the appeal stands allowed.