JUDGMENT : The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of ‘Campus International’, an establishment extending consultancy services in the education sector. The electricity connection to the premises in question, taken on lease by the petitioner, stands in the name of the additional 3 rd respondent. 3. On the basis of local inspection conducted on 23.08.2006, the 2 nd respondent issued a provisional bill demanding an amount of Rs.3150/- as a penalty for unauthorised use of electricity. It is further stated that if there is any objection against the provisional bill, that can be raised before the appropriate authority. However, without raising any objection, the petitioner remitted the amount, as evidenced by Ext.P3, wherein it is specifically stated as a full settlement. Thereafter, for more than six years, the petitioner continued to remit the bi-monthly charges without giving room for any further complaint. 4. Moreover, it is contended by the petitioner that if any Unauthorised Additional Load is found, it is the duty of the Board to raise demand and act in accordance with the provisions under Regulation 19(5) of the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005. According to the said Regulation, the Board may, in writing, inform the consumer to execute a fresh agreement in the form applicable within 30 days and that the consumer shall comply with the same. No such steps have been taken by the Board in compliance with the Regulation 19(5). 5. However, on 19.02.2013, a further demand was raised as per Ext.P5 for an amount of Rs.2,00,294/- under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (For short ‘the Act, 2003’). Along with Ext.P5, separate calculation statement also was preferred as per Exts.P6 and P6(a), wherein it is specifically demanded for fixed charges and energy charges separately. In this context, it is contended that endorsement made in Ext.P2 bill was issued on 28.08.2006 intimating levy of penalty under unauthorised load on fixed charges alone was strictly in conformity with the Board order prevailing at that point of time. In this context, it is contended that endorsement made in Ext.P2 bill was issued on 28.08.2006 intimating levy of penalty under unauthorised load on fixed charges alone was strictly in conformity with the Board order prevailing at that point of time. The Board order dated 18.09.2002 is produced as Ext.P7, wherein Clause 2 specifically states that ‘in the case of LT consumers other than domestic consumers, the penalty for unauthorised additional load shall be levied at the rate of twice the fixed charges per KW of additional load per month or part thereof till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules’. Whereas, the demand raised as per Exts.P5 and P6 is pursuant to Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, that is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, since it was issued on 07.02.2008 in light of the amended provisions to the Act, 2003. Ext. P8 was issued under those provisions, which have no retrospective effect. 6. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P5 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. That was rejected as not maintainable by order dated 12.02.2016 on the preliminary ground that the petitioner cannot maintain a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the electric connection does not stand in his name. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued with a revised notice as per Exts.P9 and P10. This is the circumstance in which the petitioner had challenging Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10. 7. Per contra, Sri.Nirmal S., the Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that primarily the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the bill issued to the additional 3 rd respondent. The bills were issued in accordance with Section 126 of the Act, 2003, and pursuant to the Board order dated 07.02.2008, which is produced as Ext.P8. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any document to prove that he is either an authorised occupier of the premises or the owner. 8. According to the respondents, an inspection was conducted by the Section Squad in the premises of the consumer on 23.08.2006. An unauthorised additional load of 7 KW was detected by the inspection team against the authorised load of 2 KW. Based on the inspection, a provisional assessment to the tune of Rs.3150/- under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 was served on the consumer. An unauthorised additional load of 7 KW was detected by the inspection team against the authorised load of 2 KW. Based on the inspection, a provisional assessment to the tune of Rs.3150/- under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 was served on the consumer. Later, a detailed calculation statement and letter explaining the invoice were also served to the consumer. The fixed charges portion was only levied for the Unauthorised Additional Load detected. As per Regulation 51(2) of the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply 2005, penalty for unauthorised additional load shall be levied till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised. The consumer was well informed that the unauthorised additional load remained connected and the continued use will be penalised until the same is removed or regularised. 9. As per Section 126 of the Act, 2003, once the assessing officer reaches the conclusion that unauthorised use of energy has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period and assessment shall be at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. As per Section 45(3)(a) of the Act, 2003, charges for electricity certified by a distribution licensee include fixed charges in addition to the charges for the actual electricity supplied and consumed. 10. In the light of these provisions, it can be asserted that the tariff includes both fixed charges and energy charges and if the assessing officer entered into conclusion that unauthorised use of energy has taken place, he is bound to make the assessment at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable, which includes dues payable towards energy charges as well. In support of this contention, the respondents have produced a reported decision in Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Thomas Joseph and Ors. ( AIR 2023 SC 126 ), wherein it was held that the tari includes both fixed charges and energy charges and once the assessing officer arrives at a conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, he is obliged to make the assessment charges equal to twice the tariff applicable, which includes dues payable towards the energy charges also. 11. It is further submitted that an audit was conducted by the Regional Audit Officer, Ernakulam, which found that the penalisation for the unauthorised additional load connected and used was neither regularised nor removed by the consumer. 11. It is further submitted that an audit was conducted by the Regional Audit Officer, Ernakulam, which found that the penalisation for the unauthorised additional load connected and used was neither regularised nor removed by the consumer. Therefore, short assessments for the period from 24.08.2006 to 09.01.2013 were issued to the consumer for an amount of Rs.2,00,294/-. The respondent has ample authority to issue the same under Regulation 37(5) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. It is also stated that the short assessment bill dated 19.02.2013 is legally valid and enforceable. 12. It is also further contended that the short assessment is an actual reflection of the amount of electricity used by the consumer as well as the amounts payable as per law. The consumer was being undercharged by way of non-inclusion of penalty for unauthorised load in the premises, as per Section 126 of the Act, 2003. A detailed calculation statement along with a covering letter was issued. On the strength of decision of Apex Court in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rahmatullah Khan [ (2020) (4) SCC 650 ], wherein it is held that as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act does not preclude the licensee from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in case of a mistake or bonafide error. Therefore, there is no illegality in the issuance of the demand notices. 13. The decision pointed out by the counsel for the Board in Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. (supra), wherein it is specifically contended that in Board order dated 07.02.2008, which was made applicable with effect from 15.06.2007, it was ordered that the Field Officer shall strictly follow the provisions of Sections 126(5) and (6) of the Act, as amended by Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007, i.e., two times the respective tariff for the entire period, and in case the said period cannot be ascertained for a period of twelve months, for assessing penalty in the case of misuse of energy including unauthorised additional load, unauthorised extension and meter tampering cases detected. 14. It was also made clear that, the penalty rate shall be applicable to both fixed and energy charges for the unauthorised use. Penalty charges for current charges shall be levied for proportionate energy charge and normal current charge collected shall be deducted. 14. It was also made clear that, the penalty rate shall be applicable to both fixed and energy charges for the unauthorised use. Penalty charges for current charges shall be levied for proportionate energy charge and normal current charge collected shall be deducted. This ratio is prescribed with respect to the amended provision which is available from 15.06.2007. Therefore, the ratio pointed out by the petitioner is not applicable in this case. 15. I have considered the contentions raised across the Bar, primarily the power to issue assessment orders provided under Section 126. The inspection was conducted on 23.08.2006 and at that point of time, the Act, 2003 was in existence. As per Section 126(6) it states that, ‘the assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).’ Even at that point of time, there was a proviso to said sub-section that “provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever.” However, this position has changed with effect from 15.06.2007, whereby the amendment was carried out to the said provision and the provision after the amendment is read as the assessment under the section shall be made at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for relevant category of service specified in sub-section (5). The proviso which was available in 2003 Act has been omitted. 14. As far as this case on hand is concerned, the inspection was conducted on 23.08.2006. The primary assessment bill was issued on 26.08.2006. Though an option was provided to the petitioner to raise objection against the said provisional assessment, the petitioner didn’t opt for it, however remitted the entire amount demanded provisionally as evident in Ext.P3. Going by Section 126 (6), the proviso available at that point of time, in case the person deposited the assessed amount, he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever. Here once the assessed amount has been paid by the petitioner as evident from the counter affidavit on the basis of audit, the fresh assessment has been made which is not contemplated under any of the provisions. Here once the assessed amount has been paid by the petitioner as evident from the counter affidavit on the basis of audit, the fresh assessment has been made which is not contemplated under any of the provisions. This is because the extant provision applicable at that time, as evident in proviso to Section 126(6), completely barred further assessment following full payment of the assessed amount. 15. According to the petitioner as per Clause 19(5) of the Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005, wherein it is stated that ‘when there are changes in the contract demand/connected load, tariff or provisions in the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, the Board may require in writing the consumer to execute a fresh agreement in the form applicable within thirty days and the consumer shall comply with the same.’ As per Clause 19(5), the Board is bound to issue notice to the petitioner or the consumer under the contract on assessing that there is an unauthorised load. 16. Moreover the Board order dated 18.09.2002, which was prevailing at that point of time as per Clause 2 specifically says that “in the case of LT consumers other than domestic consumers, the penalty for Unauthorised Additional Load shall be levied at the rate of twice the fixed charges per kilo watt of additional load per month or part thereof in the said Unauthorised Additional Load is removed or regularised as per the rules. Since the Board has not taken any steps under Regulation 19(5), such contention cannot be raised at this point, since the inspection was conducted on 23.08.2006. Provisional assessment bill was issued on 26.08.2006 as per Ext.P2 and amount was paid as per Ext P3 on 23.09.2006 and further the demand is issued only on 19.02.2013. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition in the year 2016 only after the consumer forum dismissed the application on 12.02.2016. There is a huge unexplained delay in issuing further demand. In the event if it is found that there is Unauthorised Additional Load, the Board would have taken steps under Regulation 19(5) at that point of time itself, i.e., 30 days from the date of finding some unauthorised additional load. In such circumstances, I do not find any reasons to sustain Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In such circumstances, I do not find any reasons to sustain Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In such circumstances, the amount paid as per the interim order dated 29.03.2016 shall be adjusted against the future demands. Here the dispute is raised with respect to the locus standi of the petitioner, specifically, whether he can challenge the same. I cannot accept the contentions on the premise that while accepting the amount as per Ext.P3, no such stand is taken by the Board. Even the assessment notice was issued to the Manager of the petitioner who had taken the premises on lease. Therefore, the challenge with respect to the locus standi of the petitioner cannot be raised at this point of time. Moreover, going by the proviso to 126 of the Act, 2003 available at that point of time, once the demand raised by the Board is remitted by the petitioner he shall not be subject to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever, so the subsequent demand raised as per Exts.P5, P6, P6(a), Ext.P9 and P10 on the basis of subsequent audit objection cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, and the writ petition is allowed.