JUDGMENT : MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. In all these cases, KSEB challenges the orders passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority in appeals preferred by consumers against the orders passed by them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 . The Appellate Authority, by the impugned orders, after finding that an unauthorised load was connected, devised a method for computing the amounts payable, which the Board challenges in all these cases. 2. In W.P(C) No.40116/2023, the Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the Ext.P7 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2023 in Appeal No.10/2023. This writ petition is treated as the leading case. 3. The brief facts in W.P(C) No. 40116/2023 relevant for disposal of the case are as follows:- M/s. Ashis Super Mercato, an HT IVA consumer (Consumer No. 1355460032581, LCN 18/7086) under the 2nd respondent, was found to have an unauthorised additional load of 34.384kW during a surprise inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 25.11.2022. The consumer's sanctioned load was 61.198kW, and a provisional assessment order was issued on 03.12.2022, which was later finalised on 21.12.2022, rejecting the objections raised by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged this final order before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority, which confirmed the finding of unauthorised load but directed that fixed charges be calculated based on the formula of Recorded Maximum Demand multiplied by the ratio of Unauthorised Additional Load to Total Connected Load, also allowing credit for current charges remitted. 4. The Electricity Board argues that the said direction contravenes Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the relevant judgments of the Courts. They also contend that the 3rd respondent is assessed under the tariff rates mandated by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC), which is the sole authority for determining electricity charges, and once determined, such rates bind both the Board and consumers. The Appellate Authority, constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, is obligated to adhere to the provisions and regulations of the Act and cannot interpret tariff regulations, yet it improperly devised a new method for assessing unauthorised usage. 5. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent did not contest the assessment prescribed under Section 126 , and the Appellate Authority's findings lack legal grounding and ignore proper guidelines set forth by KSERC, particularly regarding the power factor used for conversions. 5. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent did not contest the assessment prescribed under Section 126 , and the Appellate Authority's findings lack legal grounding and ignore proper guidelines set forth by KSERC, particularly regarding the power factor used for conversions. The Appellate Authority acknowledged the unauthorised usage but failed to follow the statutory mandate of making a proper assessment provided under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act. Additionally, the Appellate Authority's concerns regarding the power factor—currently set at 0.9—are unfounded, as it has no authority to challenge the KSERC's regulatory KSEBL vs. Aluva Rubex specifications. This Court in ( 2019 2 KLT 266 ) held that connecting additional equipment/load without approval constitutes unauthorised use, leading to consequences under Section 126 . However, the Appellate Authority disregarded this and ignored that Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act form a self-contained framework. 6. The details of the other writ petitions are given in the table below: Sl No. Writ Petition Number Details 1. WPC No. 2145/2024 Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. The Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority and Others. The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 02.09.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 26.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 2 WPC No. 3468/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P11 order dated 24.08.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P3 final assessment order dated 14.02.2020 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 3 WPC No. 40704/2023 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P9 order dated 01.08.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P6 final assessment order dated 24.09.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 4 WPC No. 4743/2023 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 07.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. 4 WPC No. 4743/2023 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 07.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 28.11.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 5 WPC No. 15798/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 23.08.2023 and Ext. P8 corrigendum to Ext.P7 dated 07.09.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 03.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 6 WPC No. 18683/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 27.10.2023 and Ext. P8 corrigendum to Ext.P7 dated 05.12.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 24.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 7 WPC No. 4025/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 31.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 07.01.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 8 WPC No. 4054/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 04.08.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 18.11.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 9 WPC No. 8677/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 24.08.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 23.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. P4 final assessment order dated 23.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 10 WPC No.13196/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P6 order dated 06.12.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside the final assessment order dated 20.02.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 11 WPC No. 18225/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P3 order dated 18.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 07.01.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 12 WPC No. 22765/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 21.12.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 20.02.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 13 WPC No. 23702/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P8 order dated 08.12.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 10.01.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 14 WPC No. 26787/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P8 order dated 15.12.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P5 final assessment order dated 22.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 15 WPC No. 28436/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P8 order dated 07.11.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. 15 WPC No. 28436/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P8 order dated 07.11.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 06.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 16 WPC No. 30368/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 30.11.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 09.01.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 17 WPC No. 30405/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P9 order dated 07.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 26.11.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 18 WPC No. 36087/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P9 order dated 31.01.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P6 final assessment order dated 02.03.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 19 WPC No. 36103/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P12 order dated 18.10.2023 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 03.01.2020 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 20 WPC No. 36944/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P8 order dated 23.03.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 31.03.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 21 WPC No. 39307/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P9 order dated 12.01.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. 21 WPC No. 39307/2024 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P9 order dated 12.01.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 14.12.2022 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 22 WPC No. 5460/2025 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 31.01.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 27.03.2023 issued against the 2nd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 23 WPC No. 12031/2025 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 27.06.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 29.07.2023 issued against the consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 24 WPC No. 18763/2025 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P18 order dated 02.07.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 04.03.2023 issued against the 2nd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 25 WPC No. 24916/2025 The petitioner KSEB challenges the Ext.P7 order dated 04.07.2024 of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext. P4 final assessment order dated 01.06.2023 issued against the 3rd respondent consumer on the ground that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by adopting a new method of assessment contrary to Section 126 of the Act and KSERC tariff regulations. 7. Opposing the writ petitions filed by the Electricity Board, the respondents/consumers argued and supported the calculation directed by the Appellate Authority in the impugned orders. They assert that tariffs are determined based on demand charges calculated from the recorded maximum demand, and not the connected load. Inappropriately, the Assessing Officer converted the unauthorised load of 34.384 kW into kVA using a power factor of 0.9, which is not a measure of energy. The assessment should instead reflect the recorded maximum demand, as stipulated by the tariff order. Inappropriately, the Assessing Officer converted the unauthorised load of 34.384 kW into kVA using a power factor of 0.9, which is not a measure of energy. The assessment should instead reflect the recorded maximum demand, as stipulated by the tariff order. According to Regulation 2(32) of the Electricity Supply Code, demand charges are based on either contract demand or maximum demand, whichever is higher. The respondents contend that the assessment incorrectly determined unauthorised load as 39 kVA, undermining the tariff order, which clearly states that billing demand should be the higher of recorded maximum demand in kVA or 75% of the contract demand. They contend that the tariff does not provide for penalties based on connected load, and that the Appellate Authority has consistently supported this view, which is also reflected in past Board Orders and regulations allowing for the regularisation of additional load rather than penalisation. 8. The respondents also questioned the mahazars used for assessment, including the inclusion of damaged equipment and issuing multiple inconsistent final orders. This has led to assessments extending beyond the 12-month limit, which the Appellate Authority corrected by limiting liability to proportionate fixed and energy charges based on actual demand impact. They further differentiate between Low Tension (LT) and High Tension (HT) consumers, asserting that HT consumers are billed based on maximum demand as chosen by them, allowing for a lower contract demand compared to connected load. The diversity factor, which varies by installation, explains the differences between connected load and contract demand. The fixed charges for LT consumers are considerably lower than those for HT consumers. As HT consumers already pay based on a percentage of recorded demand, imposing additional penalties for unauthorised loads, akin to LT consumers, is inconsistent with the tariff regulations and is illegal and unjust. 9. Heard Sri. Raju Joseph, instructed by Sri. Joseph Antony for the KSEB/writ petitioner, Sri.Jose Mathaikal appearing for the 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 40116/2023, W.P.(C) No. 8677/2024, W.P.(C) No. 18225/2024, W.P.(C) No. 22765/2024, W.P.(C) No. 23702/2024, W.P.(C) No. 30368/2024, W.P.(C) No. 30405/2024, W.P.(C) No. 36944/2024, W.P.(C) No. 39307/2024, Smt. E.V. Moly in W.P.(C) No. 40704/2023, Sri. N. Satheesh in W.P.(C) No. 18683/2024, Sri. Arun Thomas in W.P.(C) No. 4743/2024, W.P.(C) No. 28436/2024, W.P.(C) No. 36087/2024, Sri. C.K.Karunakaran in W.P.(C) No. 2145/2024, Sri. Jerry Geevarghese Jose in W.P.(C) No. 3468/2024, Sri.R.Harishankar in W.P.(C) No. 4054/2024, Sri. N. Satheesh in W.P.(C) No. 18683/2024, Sri. Arun Thomas in W.P.(C) No. 4743/2024, W.P.(C) No. 28436/2024, W.P.(C) No. 36087/2024, Sri. C.K.Karunakaran in W.P.(C) No. 2145/2024, Sri. Jerry Geevarghese Jose in W.P.(C) No. 3468/2024, Sri.R.Harishankar in W.P.(C) No. 4054/2024, Sri. P.Sathisan in WP(C) No. 15798/2024 and Sri. Ranjith B Marar in W.P.(C) No. 38896/2025. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board, Sri. Raju Joseph, instructed by Sri. Joseph Antony argues that the order itself shows that the findings were not based on the arguments by the parties but were by an independent research of the Appellate Authority. The same is quoted by the Appellate Authority, in its order as follows:- “The question here is whether the conversion of UAL from KW to KVA, by applying an average power factor of 0.9, which is a fictitious quantity, is justifiable / legally valid for the assessment of fixed charges, when the Recorded Maximum Demand, which is a measured real quantity, is readily available. Considering the above, this Authority has decided to conduct a detailed technical and logical analysis on the subject. This is the need of the hour, being the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 16.12.2022 in SLP 7886 of 2018, has held that 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.” 11. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that the Appellate Authority, being a creature of the statute, namely the Electricity Act, 2003 , is bound by the Electricity Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The Appellate Authority has no power to interpret the Regulations; they are bound to follow the mandate of the Regulations. In this case, the Electricity Regulatory Commission is the authority empowered to frame regulations in regard to terms and for the determination of Tariff under Section 61 of the Act, and also to issue Tariff Orders under Section 64 (3) of the Act. Invoking the said power, the Commission used to issue a Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for the retail supply of Electricity periodically. As per the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, once a Tariff order is issued, it is binding on all concerned. Invoking the said power, the Commission used to issue a Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for the retail supply of Electricity periodically. As per the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, once a Tariff order is issued, it is binding on all concerned. According to the Tariff order, Demand-Based Tariff Customers at the LT level and HT & EHT consumers are bound to pay the energy charges on kWh and fixed charges on kVA basis. It is stated in the Tariff Code that for the purpose of conversion from kVA to KW or vice versa, an average power factor of 0.9 shall be taken. The connected load obtained by examining different equipment is expressed in KW. Therefore, in order to get the equivalent kVA, it shall be divided by 0.9. The energy charges can be obtained from the energy meter expressed in kWh. 12. The Appellate Authority ventured to find out the logic of applying the power factor and found that dividing by the power factor is illogical, and therefore, calculations shall be made on the basis of Kilowatt and not kilovolt-ampere. The main challenge in these writ petitions is the said finding of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also found fault with the method of assessment of the unauthorised load as a proportion of the recorded maximum demand to the ratio of the Unauthorised Additional Load to the Total Load. It is to be seen that when unauthorised additional Load is found, the proportionate energy consumption is calculated by dividing total consumption by total load and multiplying by the additional load. It is only simple arithmetic. Nevertheless, the Appellate Authority went into several factors which are neither germane to the issue nor within the purview of the power of the Appellate Authority. Based on the above findings, the appellate authority set aside the final assessment orders and directed the Assessing officers to rework the amount and issue fresh demands. While doing so, the Appellate Authority also interfered with the quantum of unauthorised load detected by the inspection team and also with the period of assessment without any legal or factual backing. The Writ petitions have been filed challenging the above aspects. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the consumers/respondents tried to support the findings of the appellate authority by contending that the method adopted by it was perfectly in tune with the Act and the regulations. The Writ petitions have been filed challenging the above aspects. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the consumers/respondents tried to support the findings of the appellate authority by contending that the method adopted by it was perfectly in tune with the Act and the regulations. It is argued that the provisional orders and the final assessment order issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act were under challenge before the appellate authority, and therefore, there was nothing wrong in the appellate authority considering whether the computation was correct and rendering the findings. Therefore, they contend that the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority is legal, and therefore, no interference is warranted in these writ petitions. 14. It is trite that our adversarial system of adjudication is defined by engaged parties and relatively passive judges, where the parties delineate the issues in dispute and the judge renders a decision on those matters. Sua sponte decision-making—where a judge independently raises and resolves new issues not brought forth by the parties—undermines the integrity of this adversarial framework. In this system, parties cannot be relegated to a secondary role, and a passive, neutral judge must not, and cannot, be perceived as an advocate for either party or any specific outcome. Attempting to don the mantle of advocate while resolving a dispute jeopardises the essential roles that each participant must assume. The peril of dispensing with the distinct roles of litigant and judge is most apparent in the realm of sua sponte decision-making, whereby the judge introduces a new issue on their own motion, absent any prompting from the parties involved. 15. The principle of party presentation underscores not only the belief that the parties are best positioned to advance their legal interests but also the conviction that courts, as “neutral arbiter[s],” should refrain from acting as advocates for any particular result. As expressed by Justice Ginsburg, “courts do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do, we normally decide only the questions presented by the parties.” 16. It is clear that the Appellate Authority had not formulated any issues for consideration nor heard the Electricity Board on the conclusions it made. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do, we normally decide only the questions presented by the parties.” 16. It is clear that the Appellate Authority had not formulated any issues for consideration nor heard the Electricity Board on the conclusions it made. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/consumers argued that they had disputed the quantification made by the Board in proceedings under Section 126 , as noticed in the Appellate Authority order in W.P(C) No. 40116/2023, the Board could not give its version to support the quantification made in the orders impugned before the Appellate Authority. 17. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to sustain the orders of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, without any expression on the merits of the matter, all the writ petitions are allowed, and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside as under:- i. The orders of the Appellate Authority impugned in the writ petitions, to the extent they are against the Board, are set aside. ii.The findings of the Appellate Authority that unauthorised loads exist, within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, are upheld. iii.However, the Appellate Authority will rehear the question of computation of the amounts to be paid by consumers consequent to the finding of unauthorised load, and also the period for which such amounts are to be paid. iv.The Appellate Authority will also formulate the questions/issues for consideration and pass fresh orders after hearing both sides, in accordance with the law. v. If the Appellate Authority proposes to rely on any material that has not been furnished by either party, such material must be disclosed to the parties, and they should be afforded an opportunity to present their views on it before the final order is passed. vi.Orders as directed above shall be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The impugned orders are quashed as above. The writ petitions are allowed as above.