JUDGMENT : ( A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.) As a common issue arises in the Writ Appeal and the two Writ Petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. The Brief Facts: W.A.No.44 of 2019 & W.P(C).No.7734 of 2019 2. The writ appeal impugns the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.31411 of 2017 whereby the challenge by the appellant against an order of the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was dismissed as devoid of merit. W.P(C).No.7734 of 2019 on the other hand is a writ petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. [KSEB], the distribution licensee in the instant case, impugning the orders of the assessing authority and the appellate authority under the Electricity Act to the extent that they passed their respective orders in relation to the writ appellant, in a manner that was inconsistent with the terms of the Electricity Act. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these two cases are as follows: The appellant is a consumer of a High Tension Industrial connection from the KSEB and its monthly bill for electricity charges is based on a contract demand plus the rates at applicable tariff for the actual units of electricity consumed. In the agreement entered into with the KSEB, the appellant had specified a contract demand of 155KVA and had declared a connected load of 125KW. During an inspection carried out by the Anti-Power Theft Squad of KSEB on 25.02.2017, however, the connected load in the appellant’s premises was seen to be 290KW in excess of what was declared [125KW]. A provisional assessment notice was therefore served on the appellant under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, proposing to demand an amount of Rs.1,06,90,902/- towards electricity charges, for a period of24 months prior to the date of inspection. 3. The appellant submitted a detailed explanation to the provisional assessment proposed by the KSEB and after considering the same, the assessing authority reduced the demand to Rs.48,60,471/-. 3. The appellant submitted a detailed explanation to the provisional assessment proposed by the KSEB and after considering the same, the assessing authority reduced the demand to Rs.48,60,471/-. While the assessing authority found that the excess connected load was admitted, and a finding regarding the period from which the unauthorised use of electricity took place could be determined by looking at the date from which an increased usage of electricity was noticed, since the CT meter of the appellant was changed by the KSEB in March 2016, the demand for differential charges could not be made for a period prior to that date. Accordingly, the demand was confined to the period from March 2016 to February 2017. 4. In an appeal carried by the appellant to the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, the latter found that there was no justification for the assessing authority to limit the demand to the period from March 2016, especially when the fact of unauthorised connected load at the time of inspection was admitted and there was material to show an increased usage of electricity, over and above the contract demand, during the 24 month period prior to the date of inspection. 5. It is the above order of the Appellate Authority that the appellant impugned in his writ petition, primarily on the ground that, in a statutory appeal preferred by him, and in the absence of any challenge by the KSEB to the order of the assessing authority, he could not have been prejudiced to a greater extent than what he was prior to the filing of his appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said argument did not, however, find favour with the learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition, and the petition was dismissed by holding that the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act had the power to correct erroneous demands, even in an appeal preferred by the consumer, if the factual situation warranted it. While the appellant impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ appeal, the KSEB filed the writ petition impugning the assessment and appellate orders, presumably to safeguard their rights in the event of an adverse order against them in the writ appeal. W.P(C).No.29898 of 2015 6. The petitioner in the writ petition had set up a mobile telecommunication tower in Dharamasala in Kannur district. W.P(C).No.29898 of 2015 6. The petitioner in the writ petition had set up a mobile telecommunication tower in Dharamasala in Kannur district. It was sanctioned a connected load of 9.74KW under LT VIIA Tariff category. At an inspection carried out in its premises on 28.05.2011, by the Anti- Power Theft Squad of the KSEB, the connected load in the premises was found to be exceeding the sanctioned load by 3.58KW. The petitioner was therefore served with a provisional assessment notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, demanding Rs.1,11,909/- towards electricity charges. A final assessment order was later passed confirming the demand at Rs.1,05,841/-. 7. The petitioner however challenged the final assessment order before this Court through W.P(C).No.24120 of 2011, where an interim order was passed staying the demand on payment of Rs.52,921/-. The said amount was paid by the petitioner to the KSEB. Later the writ petition was disposed quashing the final assessment order and directing the assessing authority to pass fresh orders in the matter. In the remanded proceedings, however, the assessing authority, once again, confirmed the demand of Rs.1,05,841/- towards electricity charges. In the appeal carried by the petitioner against the said final order, the Appellate Authority enhanced the demand to Rs.3,45,168/- and after giving credit to the Rs.52,921/- that had already been paid by the petitioner, the revised demand was of Rs.2,92,247/-. 8. As in the case of the appellant in W.A.No.44 of 2019, the petitioner herein also impugns the orders of the assessing authority and the Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that, in a statutory appeal preferred by it, and in the absence of any challenge by the KSEB to the order of the assessing authority, it could not have been prejudiced to a greater extent than what it was prior to the filing of its appeal before the Appellate Authority. 9. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, duly assisted by Adv.Smt.Nisha George on behalf of the appellant in the writ appeal, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph, duly assisted by Sri.C.Joseph Antony, the learned counsel on behalf of the KSEB and Adv.Sri.Arun Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No. 29898 of 2015. The issues that arise: 10. George Poonthottam, duly assisted by Adv.Smt.Nisha George on behalf of the appellant in the writ appeal, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph, duly assisted by Sri.C.Joseph Antony, the learned counsel on behalf of the KSEB and Adv.Sri.Arun Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No. 29898 of 2015. The issues that arise: 10. The issues that arise for our consideration in these cases are essentially three fold, namely: i. Whether merely because an excess connected load has been detected in the premises of a consumer, he can be seen as having occasioned an unauthorised ‘use’ of electricity, more so when the electrical energy actually consumed by him, as recorded in the meter, is well within the authorised limit ? ii. If the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative, then what is the period for which the demand for unauthorised use can be made ? iii. In a statutory appeal preferred by the consumer against an adverse order of the assessing authority, can the Appellate Authority enhance the demand for electricity charges in the absence of a challenge to the order of the assessing authority by the KSEB and without the Appellate Authority issuing any notice to the consumer proposing such an enhancement ? Discussion and Findings: Issues (i) and (ii): 11. Section 126 of the Electricity Act deals with unauthorised use of electricity and penalises it. The relevant provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act read 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. (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 rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,– (a) xxxxxxxxxxxx (b) “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity- (i) xxxxxxxxx (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or 12. The interpretation to be placed on the phrase ‘unauthorised use of electricity’ in a situation where the unauthorised activity detected is the connection to the electrical system of the licensee, of a load in excess of what was sanctioned to the consumer, is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in KSEBL & Ors. v. M/s Alwaye Rubex (P) Ltd & Ors. – [ 2019 KHC 220 ] found as follows at paras 15, 24, and 26: “15. We notice from the provision under Section 126 itself that what is assessed at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable; is the unauthorised use of electricity. There is absolutely no reference to such unauthorised use being in excess of the contract demand. We notice from the provision under Section 126 itself that what is assessed at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable; is the unauthorised use of electricity. There is absolutely no reference to such unauthorised use being in excess of the contract demand. Unauthorised use can be in circumstances when there was additional equipment connected and used, which did not have the approval from either the Electrical Inspector or the Board. Admittedly additional equipment were installed in all the consumers' premises and they were also put to use for the months in which there was an assessment made under Section 126. The additional equipment having not been approved, the use of such equipment becomes unauthorised and the connected load applicable to those equipment when used, would be the “unauthorised use of electricity” in such cases. Consumption in excess of the contract demand would definitely be an unauthorised use and in such cases, there could be an assessment for unauthorised use of electricity; both on the fixed charges and the electricity charges. Sulabha Marketing, held that when the unauthorised use has been metered and the charges levied and paid; if there is no warrant for revision of tariff, by reason of the consumption having exceeded, there could be only imposition of twice the fixed charges; here at the relevant time, one and one half. 24. An actual consumption in excess of the contract demand is not necessary for attracting the deterrent provisions under Section 126. Further, we have already held that with the use of the additional equipment of specified loads found on inspection and admittedly used by the consumers, the consumers used electricity unauthorisedly for reason of the said equipment having not been approved by the Board as per the Regulations and the specific terms in the agreement. 26. Now we come to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the tariff as spoken of in Section 126, cannot be equated or determined by reference to the connected load. As we noticed from the Tariff Order issued by the Board, for HT consumers there is a fixed charge by way of demand charge and energy charges, the latter of which is with reference to the consumption of actual power. The fixed charges are determined with reference to the contract demand. As we noticed from the Tariff Order issued by the Board, for HT consumers there is a fixed charge by way of demand charge and energy charges, the latter of which is with reference to the consumption of actual power. The fixed charges are determined with reference to the contract demand. The determination of fixed charges is available from Clause 10 of Exhibit P1 agreement, which is extracted hereunder: “10. For the purpose of this agreement the maximum KVA demand will be the average of the quantities of KVA delivered to the point of supply of the consumer recorded during any consecutive 30 minutes period of maximum use in the month registered by the 11 KV / 22 KV metering equipment installed near the point of supply. This is also defined as twice the largest number of KVAH supplied and taken during any consecutive thirty minutes in the month. The demand based on which the consumer will be billed for a month (billing demand)shall be: a) Actual Maximum Demand established during the month rounded to the nearest integer in KVA OR b) 75% of the Contract Demand OR c) 50 KVA, whichever is higher”. On facts, we again refer to W.A.No.803 of 2014, wherein the fixed charge is Rs.270/-; the highest among (a), (b) and (c) in the above extract. The fixed charges, hence, would be computed on the basis of the contract demand. When the consumer is found to have unauthorisedly used an equipment; but, however, without any excess consumption of electricity over that of the contract demand, then the assessment can only be of the additional connected load. The additional connected load being not approved by the Board, is an unauthorised use and it would have to be levied fixed charges as an unauthorised use; since it is in addition to the contract demand levied on the consumer based on the approved connected load. True the contract demand is what is sought for by the consumer, but the Board is not fettered by what is demanded by the consumer. There are a lot of factors which determine the contract demand, eventually sanctioned by the Board. There can be no assumption that when the consumer connects additional load in excess of the connected load, then there would be no consumption in excess of the contract load. There are a lot of factors which determine the contract demand, eventually sanctioned by the Board. There can be no assumption that when the consumer connects additional load in excess of the connected load, then there would be no consumption in excess of the contract load. It cannot also be assumed that in such circumstance there would be no detrimental effect to the supply or the financial aspects. If such assumptions are made then it would render Section 126 applicable only when the additional load results in any disruption of supply or financial loss. If we place such interpretation on the provision, it would be begging the question; inviting a disruption or financial loss to apply Section 126. Then it would go against the declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a deterrent measure. If deterrence is the intention, is the Board to wait for the deleterious consequence? The answer would be an emphatic NO. Hence, the contention of the Board that Section 126 is a power to assess and not to penalize; which we endorse. The deleterious consequences of disruption of supply in general or financial loss, if occasioned, by similar defalcations of absence of approval, could lead to other consequences; for example disconnection as available in clause 14(c). We, hence, do not find any reason to countenance the argument of the learned Counsel based on the ground that the tariff cannot at any point be equated with the connected load. The connected load of equipment, which are not approved, by both the Electrical Inspector and the Bosard, or one of them, is the unauthorised use of electricity. The load of the equipment in excess of the connected load is the unauthorised use, assessed under the fixed tariff with reference to contract load, which as applicable to the consumer, sanctioned for the specific connected load having approval of both the Board and the Electrical Inspector.” 13. It is clear from the afore extracted portion of the judgment in Alwaye Rubex (supra) that the usage of electricity in circumstances where such usage is in violation of one of the terms of supply of electricity viz. usage with a higher connected load, is to be seen as an unauthorised use of electricity for the purposes of Section126 of the Electricity Act. 14. usage with a higher connected load, is to be seen as an unauthorised use of electricity for the purposes of Section126 of the Electricity Act. 14. The next issue that arises for consideration is regarding the period for which the demand can be made ? In this connection, we find that in W.A.No.44 of 2019, the authorities have proceeded on the basis of increased usage of electricity and determined the unauthorised use as commencing from the date on which such increased usage was detected in the meter readings. We find the said approach of the KSEB to be erroneous since the mere fact of increased use of electricity from a particular date does not necessarily mean that the connected load was also increased from that date. Connected load is determined as the sum of the power ratings of all electrical equipment connected to a circuit system. The determination of connected load is not dependant upon the usage of electricity. In fact, an increased consumption of electricity can also be attributed to a prolonged use of the electrical equipment’s that fall within the sanctioned connected load. To illustrate: If there were originally five machines connected to the system, and two machines that were added later contributed to the increased connected load, then, any increased consumption of electrical energy during the period prior to the date of connection of the two additional machines to the system, could well be on account of a prolonged use of the original five machines during that period. Increased use of electrical energy need not always be on account of an increase in the connected load. 15. In the case of the appellant in W.A.No.44 of 2019, in the absence of any material on record that could point clearly to the exact date of installation of the additional machines detected at the time of the inspection, the statutory authorities had necessarily to resort to the default period of twelve months prior to the date of inspection and confine the demand in respect of unauthorised use of electricity to only that period. The same principle would apply in relation to the demand against the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 29898 of 2015 as well. Issue (iii): 16. The same principle would apply in relation to the demand against the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 29898 of 2015 as well. Issue (iii): 16. As regards the power of the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, we are of the firm view that as a creature of the statute he can be seen as having only such powers as are conferred by the statute in question. An appellate power is necessarily confined in its scope by the extent to which appellant chooses to impugn the order of the original authority before the appellate authority. Since the appellant/consumers in these cases were impugning the demand of the assessing authority in a lower amount, it was not open to the appellate authority to enhance his powers by adjudicating matters that were not impugned before him. The appellants could not have been prejudiced to a greater extent than what they were prior to their filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. In our view, the statutory scheme under the Electricity Act does not clothe the Appellate Authority with such vast and sweeping powers. The upshot of the above discussions is that; i. W.A.No.44 of 2019 is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowing W.P. (C).No.31411/2017 to the limited extent of setting aside Ext.P8 order of the Appellate Authority impugned therein, but upholding Ext.P4 Final assessment order therein. ii. W.P(C).No.7734 of 2019 is dismissed. iii. W.P(C).No.29898 of 2015 is partly allowed by setting aside Ext.P13 order of the Appellate Authority and Ext.P14 demand notice impugned therein, but upholding Ext.P9 Final assessment order therein. The petitioner shall also be given credit for the payments already made while enforcing the demand in Ext.P9 order.