JUDGMENT : S.MANU, J. First respondent is running a hospital. Electricity supply under LT-VIB Tariff in three phases with sanctioned load 74kW was availed by the 1 st respondent. In an inspection conducted by Vigilance Special Squad led by Anti Power Theft Squad, Palakkad unit in the premises of the 1 st respondent on 27.3.2003, additional load of 46kW over and above registered load of 74kW was detected. Penalty was imposed and the same was remitted by the 1 st respondent. Though it was directed to regularise the unauthorised additional load, same was not done by the 1 st respondent for a long time. The supply was not disconnected, however, charges for additional load continued to be demanded and paid by the 1 st respondent. 2. According to the KSEB penal portion of fixed charges from June 2008 to March 2011 and energy charges from June 2007 to April 2011 were not included in the monthly demands by mistake. It was noticed in the audit of accounts. Thereafter, a demand was issued for the escaped charges on 30.10.2011. The bill was for an amount of Rs.18,58,537/-. First respondent challenged the demand in W.P.(C)No.30946/2011. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 8.11.2013. Impugned demand was set aside and Board was given liberty to impose penalty in compliance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act . 3. First respondent submitted a representation on 17.7.2014 to the Assistant Engineer requesting to drop the demand. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was issued by the Assistant Engineer directing to remit the amount as per the final bill. A detailed split up was also furnished along with the order. First respondent challenged the order by approaching the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act . The appellate authority after considering the matter, by order dated 23.12.2015 allowed the appeal. Final assessment order was set aside and Board was directed to refund the amount already deposited by the 1 st respondent with interest. W.P. (C)No.17906/2016 was filed by the Board challenging the order of the appellate authority. First respondent filed W.P. (C)No.40877/2016 seeking direction to refund an amount of Rs.9,29,300/- deposited with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 1.9.2014. Since the writ petitions are inter-related they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. Parties are being referred as they are arrayed in W.P.(C)No.17906/2016. First respondent filed W.P. (C)No.40877/2016 seeking direction to refund an amount of Rs.9,29,300/- deposited with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 1.9.2014. Since the writ petitions are inter-related they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. Parties are being referred as they are arrayed in W.P.(C)No.17906/2016. Reference to the documents is also as marked in the said writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB Sri.Ajit Joy contended that the order of the appellate authority is illegal. He submitted that the consumer had indulged in unauthorised use of energy. 46 kW was the unauthorised load. Though the penalty was paid, 1 st respondent failed to regularise the additional load. Steps were taken by the 1 st respondent much later for regularisation of unauthorised load. First respondent is liable to pay penalty for the unauthorised additional load until the additional load is removed or regularised as per the Rules. Due to inadvertence at the time of computerization fixed charges from 6/2008 to 3/2011 and energy charges from 6/2007 to 4/2011 were omitted when monthly demands were raised. Bill for an amount of Rs.18,58,537/- was issued on 31.10.2011 when the omission was noticed. The demand so raised was in accordance with the relevant Regulations and Rules. Therefore, the demand was in fact an assessment made for escaped charges for a period during which the energy charges and fixed charges were omitted to be demanded. The learned Standing Counsel referred to Regulation 51(2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 which provides that the penalty for unauthorised additional load shall be levied till the unauthroised additional load is removed or regularised. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned order of the appellate authority is illegal and perverse as the appellate authority arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was not followed. He referred to Section 126 of the Act and contended that assessing officer can come to a conclusion regarding unauthorised use of electricity after inspection of records also and it is not necessary that inspection of place or premises or of the equipment, gadgets, machines or devices shall be made. He referred to Section 126 of the Act and contended that assessing officer can come to a conclusion regarding unauthorised use of electricity after inspection of records also and it is not necessary that inspection of place or premises or of the equipment, gadgets, machines or devices shall be made. He hence submitted that the final bill in the case at hand was issued and the final assessment was made on the basis of inspection of records and hence there was due compliance of the provisions of the Section 126 of the Act. He also submitted that the inspection was held by Vigilance Squad in the year 2003 in which unauthorised load was detected and penalty was paid by the 1 st respondent. Hence, the 1 st respondent cannot be permitted to contend that there was no unauthorised use of electricity. So also it cannot be disputed that unauthorised load was removed or regularised during the period with respect to which the assessment was made for escaped charges. Hence, he contended that the appellate authority ought to have upheld the final assessment and by interfering with the same, the said authority has committed a grave error in exercising the powers under Section 127 of the Act. 5. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the demands are not hit by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act. He relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer(D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another v. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla [ (2020)4 SCC 650 ]. About the contention of the respondent that for issuing the disputed demand notices fresh compliance of the requirements of Section 126 was essential, he pointed out judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.975/2014 . He contended that for issuing further demands on the basis of an inspection and assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act , no fresh compliance with the procedure under Section 126 is essential in view of the judgment of the Division Bench. 6. Learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that Ext.P2 bill was issued on 31.10.2011 without giving any opportunity to the respondent to explain. No opportunity was provided to contest the calculation of the alleged dues. The Board has violated provisions of Section 126 while issuing the disputed bill. 6. Learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that Ext.P2 bill was issued on 31.10.2011 without giving any opportunity to the respondent to explain. No opportunity was provided to contest the calculation of the alleged dues. The Board has violated provisions of Section 126 while issuing the disputed bill. In W.P.(C)No.30946/2011 this Court quashed the bills and held that KSEB could impose penalty only after complying with all the procedural formalities under Section 126 of the Act. Thereafter, fresh provisional assessment bill was issued on 14.7.2014 reiterating the claim raised earlier. Since this Court directed the KSEB in Ext.P4 judgment to comply with the procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act , the Board ought to have followed the same. The judgment had become final and being an inter-party judgment the Board as well as the consumer are bound by the said judgment. By issuing the final assessment bill without complying with the procedure under Section 126 of the Act, the Board had flouted the directions in Ext.P4 judgment. The appellate authority therefore rightly interfered and set aside the final assessment and bill. He also submitted that the demand was hit by limitation. According to the learned counsel, the maximum previous period with respect to which the claim can be raised under Section 126 of the Act is 12 months and hence the demand is clearly untenable. The Board ought to have complied with the direction of the appellate authority to refund the amount deposited by the 1 st respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that the judgment of Division bench of this Court in W.A.No.975/2014 is distinguishable on facts. He therefore prayed that the challenge by the Board may be repelled and it may be directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent at the earliest. 7. The main issue to be addressed in view of the contentions of both sides is as to whether the procedure adopted by the Board in issuing final assessment order was proper or not. 7. The main issue to be addressed in view of the contentions of both sides is as to whether the procedure adopted by the Board in issuing final assessment order was proper or not. In W.P.(C)No.30946/2011 filed by the consumer this Court set aside Ext.P2 bill and held as follows:- “.............Even though Regulation 51 (2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions Supply, 2005 provides that penalty for unauthorized additional load shall be levied till the said unauthorized additional load is removed or regularized, the said regulation does not authorizes any person to make an assessment of such penalty without following the comprehensive procedure contemplated under Section 126 , which are mandatory in nature. Merely because once the unauthorized use of electricity was detected and penalty was imposed, the authorities of the Board are not entitled to continue the penalization automatically for any further period, without following procedure prescribed under Section 126 . On an equitable basis, the authorities of the Board are not supposed to permit the consumer to continue the unauthorized usage indefinitely, without insisting upon to dismantle the unauthorized additional load or without insisting upon regularization of such additional load. Even if no such action was taken from the side of the Board, and even if the consumer had failed to remove or regularize the additional load, penalty alleging continuance of such unauthorized usage can be made only by completing separate assessment, after complying with all the procedural formalities requisite under Section 126 . The impugned bills issued merely demanding payment of penalty without issuing any provisional order and without affording any opportunity to the consumer to raise objections and without affording any opportunity for personal hearing, as required under Section 126 (2) and (3), cannot be sustained legally. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exhibit P1 and P4 bills are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to impose penalty on the petitioner, if sustainable under law, after complying with all the procedural formalities enumerated under Section 126 . However, if any such steps are initiated, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge/object such proposal on all available grounds, including the question of limitation if any provided under the relevant provisions.” 8. However, if any such steps are initiated, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge/object such proposal on all available grounds, including the question of limitation if any provided under the relevant provisions.” 8. This Court thus held that the Board will be at liberty to impose penalty on the consumer, if sustainable under law, after complying with all the procedural formalities enumerated under Section 126 . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no fresh inspection was conducted by the Board and ignoring the specific direction to comply with the procedure under Section 126 of the Act, the Board proceeded in violation of the directions issued by this Court. The learned Standing Counsel addressed the said contention by arguing that it is not necessary to conduct a fresh inspection for assessment under Section 126 (1) of the Act. He pointed out that inspection of records maintained is also sufficient for effecting assessment under Section 126 of the Act. For ready reference Section 126 (1) is extracted hereunder:- “ Section 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.” 9. A careful reading of the provision shows that assessing officer can come to the conclusion that there is unauthorised use of electricity either, 1) on an inspection of any place or premises, 2) or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or use, 3) or after inspection of records maintained by any person. Language of the provision makes it clear that the assessing officer can arrive at a conclusion if he finds that there is unauthorised use of electricity on inspection in any of the three modes provided under Section 126 (1). Each mode of inspection is independent and separate. Therefore, it cannot be said that inspection of the place or premises is mandatory or that the assessment cannot be done without such an inspection. 10. Each mode of inspection is independent and separate. Therefore, it cannot be said that inspection of the place or premises is mandatory or that the assessment cannot be done without such an inspection. 10. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the instant case unauthorised use of electricity was detected in the inspection conducted in the premises in 2003. Penalty imposed was paid by the 1 st respondent. Penal charges were also being paid. It is also not disputed that the unauthorised load was not removed and regularised before or during the period with respect to which Ext.P2 bill was issued. He hence submitted that inspection of records was sufficient in the case at hand for assessment pursuant to which Ext.P2 was issued. It is to be noted that Ext.P2 as well as Ext.P6 were issued for the fixed charges and energy charges which were omitted to be demanded along with penal charges. In the nature of the charges which were omitted and later demanded it cannot be said that any fresh inspection of the premises was required. Consumption will be recorded periodically for the purpose of issuing bills. Therefore, records available with the Board were sufficient to find out the escaped fixed charges and electricity charges. Direction issued by this court in WP(C).No.30946 of 2011 was to comply with the requirements of S.126 as discernible from paragraph 5 of the judgment. Inspection of the records was hence sufficient for issuing Exts.P2 and P6. Therefore it cannot be said that the Board did not comply with the requirements under Section 126 of the Electricity Act when it issued Ext.P6. Hence, the contention of the consumer that the Board violated the directions issued by this Court as well as the provisions of Section 126 is without merit. 11. The next aspect to be considered is as to whether the Board was justified in raising demands in 2014 for the period from 6/2007 to 4/2011 and 6/2008 to 3/2011. The learned counsel for the consumer contended that under Section 126 (5) of the Act, the assessment shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. He also pointed out that the limitation under Section 56(2) also may apply. The learned counsel for the consumer contended that under Section 126 (5) of the Act, the assessment shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. He also pointed out that the limitation under Section 56(2) also may apply. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the said limitation would apply only when the period during which unauthorised use of electricity had taken place could not be ascertained. Section 126 (5) is extracted hereunder: - “ Section 126 . Assessment. ........ (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.” 12. It is clear from the reading of the provision that the period of assessment shall be limited to 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection only if the period during which unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained. In the present case period during which the Board omitted to demand electricity charges and fixed charges is clearly ascertainable and hence the provisions of Section 126 (5) of the Act have no application. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, even the limitation under Section 56(2) will not apply in the case in view of the categorical declaration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer(D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another v. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla [ (2020)4 SCC 650 ].The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “9. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, the licensee company raised an additional demand on 18-3-2014 for the period July 2009 to September 2011. The licensee company discovered the mistake of billing under the wrong Tariff Code on 18-3-2014. The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) had by then already expired. 9.1. Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) had by then already expired. 9.1. Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. It did not, however, empower the licensee company to take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand. 9.2. As per Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in case of a mistake, the limitation period begins to run from the date when the mistake is discovered for the first time. In Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P. [Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 1 ], this Court held that : (SCC p. 11, para 22) “22. Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that in the case of a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff had discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. In a case where payment has been made under a mistake of law as contrasted with a mistake of fact, generally the mistake becomes known to the party only when a court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law. Though a party could, with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of fact even before a court makes a pronouncement, it is seldom that a person can, even with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the validity of the law. (emphasis supplied)” 9.3. In the present case, the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of the mistake i.e. 18-3-2014. The licensee company may take recourse to any remedy available in law for recovery of the additional demand, but is barred from taking recourse to disconnection of supply of electricity under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The appellate authority allowed the appeal by Ext.P8 order holding that for assessment invoking Section 126 of the Act, all the procedure under the said Section shall be complied with, which would commence with the site inspection and preparation of detailed site mahazar. The appellate authority allowed the appeal by Ext.P8 order holding that for assessment invoking Section 126 of the Act, all the procedure under the said Section shall be complied with, which would commence with the site inspection and preparation of detailed site mahazar. As found already, for assessment under Section 126 of the Act, inspection of the premises is only one of the methods provided under Section 126 (1). Observation of the appellate authority that every assessment under Section 126 shall commence with inspection and preparation of mahazar is therefore erroneous. The appellate authority relied on the judgment of this Court in Luqman Ali Muhammed v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24478 : 2014 (2) KLT 833 ] . This Court held that penalty for continued unauthorised extension can be imposed only if the assessing officer is convinced that such extension had actually continued during any period after the date of inspection that too after complying with the procedure under Section 126 of the Act. In the facts of the instant case the unauthorised use of electricity was conceded by the consumer by paying the penalty and by continuing to pay penal charges for a long period. The Board has contended that it repeatedly directed the consumer to dismantle the unauthorised load or to regularise the same. The consumer has no case that it disconnected the unauthorised load or regularised it before or during the period with respect to which Ext.P6 was issued. In such a situation, in my view, there was no requirement to conduct any fresh inspection before issuing Ext.P6. Hence, the reasoning of the appellate authority obtained from Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. It is liable to be set aside. In the result, WP(C).No.17906/2016 is allowed. Ext.P8 order in appeal No.67/2015 is set aside. WP(C).No.40877/2016 is dismissed.