JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI) 1. Present appeal is preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent Act to assess the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.4.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 1634 of 2019. 2. The prayers as made by the appellant-original writ petitioner in the writ petition was to issue writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2018 passed by the learned Electric Inspector-appellate authority in Appeal No. 6 of 2018-19. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions on behalf of both the parties was pleased to dismiss the writ petition observing that no case was made out for interference. This order is assailed in the present appeal. 4. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the appellant-original writ petitioner Company is the distribution licencee and engaged in the transmission of electricity. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for short) is a consumer of the petitioner having consumer number 15113026867. The respondent had applied for and was granted electricity connection with contracted load of 17 KW. On 19.5.2018, a surprise inspection was carried out at the premises of the respondent by the Officials of the petitioner Company. During inspection it came to notice that the respondent was using 51.243 KW load instead of the sanctioned load of 17 KW, which was 34.243 KW in excess of the sanctioned load limit. 5. In the wake of the inspection carried out by the officials of the petitioner Company, a checking-sheet, in presence of the respondent, was drawn and a provisional assessment was made with regard to the electricity charges payable by the respondent. The Assessing Officer, considering the change in the tariff, provisionally determined an amount of Rs.3,03,750/-as being payable for the unauthorized use of electricity. Subsequent to the provisional assessment, the respondent had a right to submit objections within 7 days, which were not submitted by the respondent. Therefore, a final order of assessment came to be passed by the Assessing officer of the petitioner Company, determining an amount of Rs.3,03,750/-as payable by the respondent. 6. Subsequent to the provisional assessment, the respondent had a right to submit objections within 7 days, which were not submitted by the respondent. Therefore, a final order of assessment came to be passed by the Assessing officer of the petitioner Company, determining an amount of Rs.3,03,750/-as payable by the respondent. 6. Being aggrieved by the final order of assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act, which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 19/2017-18. The appellate authority observed that the respondent was using electricity, which was more than the sanctioned load, but it has opined it was a case of breach of Clause-4.95 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Code' for short). We may note that Clause 4.95 of the Supply Code which required the distribution licensee to issue notice to the respondent to determine the load required by the consumer of a specific sanctioned load. The appeal was, thus, allowed observing that the petitioner was required to issue notice to the respondent calling upon the respondent i.e. consumer to prefer an application for enhancement of sanctioned load. 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.8.2018, the petitioner preferred writ petition which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 1634 of 2019. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 18.4.2019 observed that no case was made out for interference in favour of the petitioner Company and, therefore, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and hence this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate with Ms. Manvi Damle, learned advocate for M/s. Nanavati & Co., for the appellant and Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate with Tusharkumar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent. 9. Mr. Maulik G.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that Clause-4.95 of the Code has no relevance to the subject matter of the case. It is not disputed that the respondent had been consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned load. There was no voluntary disclosure by the respondent prior to the consumption of excess load. It is not disputed that the respondent had been consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned load. There was no voluntary disclosure by the respondent prior to the consumption of excess load. There was no application by the respondent requesting for re-classification to appropriate category on the basis of the increased excess load. Further, Clause-4.95 of the Code is not an independent provision and has to be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the Code. It was further argued that Clause-4.95 has to be read together with Clause-4.76 of the Code. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Clauses would reveal that these provisions provide for remedy to a bonafide consumer for excess or reduced consumption of energy. In no way, it would apply to dishonest consumers like the petitioner, who do not make any disclosure on their own of the excess consumption load and call for review. 10. It was further submitted by Mr. Nanavati that the learned Single Judge as well as the appellate authority have failed to appreciate the true intending purport of Section 126 of the Act. It was submitted that the intent of Section 126 of the Act is to put an implied restriction on unauthorised consumption of electricity. The provision of Section 126 of the Act read with the applicable Regulations prohibit consumption of electricity in excess of the maximum sanctioned or installed load than which has been permitted by the distribution Company. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the respondent was using energy in excess of the requested and sanctioned load. The provisions of Section 126 of the Act would prevail over Clause-4.95 of the Code. Even if Clause-4.95 of the Code was made applicable singularly then also it would not have a prevailing effect over Section 126 of the Act. The respondent, thus, would not have a substantive right of being served with a notice for enhancement of load in the event of excessive consumption of electricity. To substantiate the said submissions, the learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph & Ors, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1737. 11. To substantiate the said submissions, the learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph & Ors, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1737. 11. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that another learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9035 of 2018 has taken an absolutely contrary view than the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It was placed that the learned Single Judge therein has held that the excess consumption of electricity than the sanctioned load would be governed by Section 126 of the Act and further reliance on Section 4.95 of the Code would be inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 126 of the Act, inasmuch as, any reference thereto would defeat the intent of Section 126. 12. Per contra, Ms. Sneha Joshi learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the issue involved in the case at hand is excess usage than the sanctioned load of electricity and it cannot be treated as a case of theft. It would, therefore, not be covered by the provisions of Section 126 of the Act. The unauthorised consumption of excess load and energy is covered under the Code. Therefore, learned Single Judge as well as appellate authority has rightly allowed by invoking the provisions of Clause-4.95 of the Code. It was further submitted that the notice of 60 days was required to be issued in view of the provisions of the Clause-4.95 of the Code, when it was found out that the connected load is 25% more. The purpose of issuing such a notice would have to enable the respondent to upgrade the contracted load as per its requirement. It was further submitted that as per Clause-7.30 of the Code, it is mandatory that the respondent had to be given assessment bill within 3 working days from the date of inspection. There was a complete breach of Clause-7.30 of the Code and, therefore, the observations made by the appellate authority as well the order passed by learned Single Judge are totally justified. The prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal, accordingly. 13. There was a complete breach of Clause-7.30 of the Code and, therefore, the observations made by the appellate authority as well the order passed by learned Single Judge are totally justified. The prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal, accordingly. 13. Having heard the arguments canvassed by the learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record, the primary question for consideration before us would be whether the factum of consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load would fall within the purview of "unauthorised use of electricity" as provided under Section 126(6)(b)(iv) of the Act. The electric connection is given to a consumer on a contractual stipulation. In the present case, the usage was not suppose to exceed 17 KW. At this stage, we may note the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 14. The language in the provisions of Section 126(6)(b)(iv) is restriction against consuming electricity in excess of the maximum sanctioned load, which is 17 KW in the instant case. Once it is admitted that electricity consumption was in excess of the sanctioned load, it would definitely be a case of "unauthorised use of electricity". The term "unauthorised use of electricity" can not be restricted to the meaning of change in the purpose of use. Excess consumption, in any case, would fall within the meaning of "unauthorised use of electricity". It is categorically held by the Apex Court in case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (South Co) and Anr. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, in (2012) 2 SCC 108 that the ambit and scope of Section 126 of the Act is intended to provide safeguards against pilferage of energy and malpractice by the consumer. In Kerala State Electricity Board and others v. Thomas Joseph & Ors (Supra) the Apex Court has further summarized the principles of law surrounding the cases of excessive consumption of electricity by the consumer in the context of Section 126 of the Act, which is being extracted hereinunder: "56. The principles of law discernible from the aforesaid may be summarised as under: (1) The provisions of Section 126, read with Section 127 of the Act 2003 become a Code in themselves. The principles of law discernible from the aforesaid may be summarised as under: (1) The provisions of Section 126, read with Section 127 of the Act 2003 become a Code in themselves. It specifically provides the method of computation of the amount that a consumer would be liable to pay for excessive consumption of electricity and for the manner of conducting assessment proceeding. Section 126 of the Act 2003 has been enacted with a purpose to achieve i.e., to put an implied restriction on such unauthorised consumption of electricity. (2) The purpose of Section 126 of the Act 2003 is to provide safeguards to check the misuse of powers by unscrupulous elements. The provisions of Section 126 of the Act 2003 are self-explanatory. They are intended to cover situations, other than, the situations specifically covered under Section 135 of the Act 2003. In such circumstances, the Court should adopt an interpretation which should help in attaining the legislative intent. (3) The purpose sought to be achieved with the aid of the provisions of Section 126 of the Act 2003 is to ensure stoppage of misuse/unauthorised use of the electricity as well as to ensure prevention of revenue loss. (4) The overdrawal of electricity is prejudicial to the public at large, as it is likely to throw out of gear the entire supply system, undermining its efficiency, efficacy and even-increasing voltage fluctuations. (5) The expression ‘unauthorised use of electricity’ means as it appears in Section 126 of the Act 2003. It is an expression of wider connotation and principle construed purposively in contrast to contextual interpretation, while keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act 2003. 15. Another aspect of the matter would be whether Section 4.95 of the Code would prevail over the express provisions of Section 126 of the Act. Clause covers the cases where the maximum demand is recorded in excess of 5% or more for at least four times in the previous financial year. "Maximum demand"as been defined in the Supply Code means "an average KW/KVA supplied during the consecutive 30/15 minutes period of maximum use where such meter with the features of reading the maximum demand in KW/KVA directly has been provided. In the cases as mentioned under Clause 4.95, notice to the consumer is compulsory. "Maximum demand"as been defined in the Supply Code means "an average KW/KVA supplied during the consecutive 30/15 minutes period of maximum use where such meter with the features of reading the maximum demand in KW/KVA directly has been provided. In the cases as mentioned under Clause 4.95, notice to the consumer is compulsory. If the provisions of Clause 4.95 is to be given effect to in facts of this case, where unscrupulous consumer use electricity more than the sanctioned strength, then the very object of Section 126 of the Act would be frustrated. There cannot be two opinions that overdrawal of electricity is prejudicial to the public at large as it may throw out the entire supply system and fluctuate the voltage efficacy as well. Further , the provisions of Clause 4.95 cannot work inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 126 of the Act. That being the case, the decision of the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of the appellate authority for setting aside the supplementary bill, relying upon the provisions of Section 4.95 of the Supply Code, is found to be faulty. 16. Further reliance placed by the respondent on Clause 7.30 of the Supply Code is misconceived, inasmuch as, the provisional bill has been provided to the respondent and they did not raise any objection. 17. Therefore, in our humble opinion, the judgment and order dated 18.4.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 1634 of 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 6 of 2018-19 are liable to be quashed and set aside and are being set-aside, accordingly. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.