JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The appellant, who is a High Tension Consumer of electricity with Consumer No.LCN 4/4212 under the Electrical Section, Cherai of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB), which is engaged in running a resort with a sanctioned contract load of 70KVA and connected load of 136KW, filed W.P.(C)No.4107 of 2019 before this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 site mahazar dated 23.05.2018 prepared by the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Cherai, Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, North Paravur, Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018 issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer and Ext.P8 order dated 15.01.2019 of the 5 th respondent Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority and all other proceedings pursuant thereto; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to refund the amounts collected from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 and Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018. 2. The issue raised in the writ petition centers around an inspection conducted on 23.05.2018, in the premises of the appellant-petitioner, by the Anti Power Theft Squad. Based on Ext.P1 site mahazar, the petitioner was issued with a short assessment bill (provisional demand) for Rs.36,55,527/-, on the allegation that an additional connected load of 200.006 KW was installed in the premises at the time of inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 23.05.2018. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objections dated 07.05.2018. After considering the said objections the 2 nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer issued Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 and Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.36,55,527/-. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the 5 th respondent Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, invoking the provisions under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner deposited 50% of the total demand, i.e., Rs.18,27,763/-, at the time of submitting Ext.P7 appeal. The Appellate Authority passed Ext.P8 order, declining interference on the assessment made by the original authority. Based on Ext.P8 order, the 2 nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer issued Ext.P9 notice dated 31.01.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to remit the balance amount of Rs.18,27,764/- on or before 15.02.2019. 3. The Appellate Authority passed Ext.P8 order, declining interference on the assessment made by the original authority. Based on Ext.P8 order, the 2 nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer issued Ext.P9 notice dated 31.01.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to remit the balance amount of Rs.18,27,764/- on or before 15.02.2019. 3. After considering the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 31.01.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No. 4107 of 2019, along with another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No. 2041 of 2019 filed by another consumer. Paragraphs 5 to 9 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 31.01.2025 read thus; “5. The main contention taken by the petitioner is with reference to the energization approval granted by the Electrical Inspector for 573.335KW as seen from Ext.P5. In the light of the afore, it is contended that no additional charges are payable, since the connected load was admittedly 136 KW. Reliance is also placed in the judgment of this Court in Sulabha Marketing(P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and Others [ 2017 (3) KHC 563 ] to contend that the additional charges are liable to be set aside. 6. In the case at hand, the additional demand is raised pursuant to the inspection of the premises as noticed above. The question arising for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can take shelter under Ext.P5 since, with reference to Ext.P5 the sanctioned load was 573.335 KW. 7. The afore issue was a subject matter of dispute in Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Others v. Alwaye Rubex (P) Ltd. [ 2019 (2) KLT 266 ]. Considering the submissions made, a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “10. Having gone through the decisions cited before us, we are not inclined to accept the distinction placed on facts, to not follow the precedent. True in both the cited cases, there was consumption in excess of the contract demand. We also realize that connected load is the only specification with respect to low tension consumers. But that does not dilute the significance of connected load insofar as HT consumers merely because they have a stipulation of contract demand based on which fixed charges are levied. We also realize that connected load is the only specification with respect to low tension consumers. But that does not dilute the significance of connected load insofar as HT consumers merely because they have a stipulation of contract demand based on which fixed charges are levied. The interpretation of the various provisions in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, which has been followed extensively in Sulabha Marketing, are not confined to the facts of that particular cases alone. The term "unauthorised use of electricity" for the purpose of assessment under S.126 is defined in Explanation (b) to S.126; which was interpreted in the cited decisions. What is applicable in the present case is sub-clause (ii), which speaks of unauthorised use by means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee. Both the learned Counsel who argued in support of the respondents contended that the word 'or' used, makes it clear that if an approval has been obtained from any of the three, then there could be found no unauthorised use. The contention has been raised on the ground that in all the cases the approval of Electrical Inspector has been obtained for installation of the additional machinery. We are not inclined to interpret so, the mandate of approval from the concerned person or authority or licensee. If the Statute, the Rules framed there under or the specific terms of the agreement speak of an approval from more than one persons specified therein, then the word 'or' has to be understood as 'and'. Otherwise, the restriction of unauthorised use, which is the intention behind S.126, would be rendered otiose. S.126 enables assessment when there is no approval obtained. The mandate of approval has to be found from either the Statute, the rules, the terms and conditions of supply or the agreement entered into by the consumer.” In the light of the afore principle, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner with reference to the approval of the Electrical Inspector is only to be repelled. 8. The petitioner further referred to the judgment in Sulabha Marketing (supra) to contend that the alleged additional load was not leading to a change in tariff/supply and was in the same premises. Hence, no additional charge was leviable. 8. The petitioner further referred to the judgment in Sulabha Marketing (supra) to contend that the alleged additional load was not leading to a change in tariff/supply and was in the same premises. Hence, no additional charge was leviable. The said contention was raised with reference to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, as interpreted in the afore judgment, more specifically with reference to the declaration by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 31 (vi) as follows: “(vi) However, in the case of a consumer, who is blamed with overdrawal of electricity in excess of sanctioned/connected load in the very same premises and for the very same purpose, which do not involve any change in tariff applicable for the relevant category of services, which consumption has already been metered and paid by the consumer, since such usage being not by any artificial means or through a tampered meter, assessment under Section 126(6) of the Act can only be equal to twice the fixed charges payable and such consumer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay twice the energy charges applicable for the relevant category of services, unless regularisation of such additional connected load or enhancement of contract demand necessitates upgradation of the existing distribution system or enhancement of voltage level of supply.” However, I notice that the afore judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been reversed by the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Thomas Joseph alias Thomas M.J. and others [ (2023) 11 SCC 700 ]. In the light of the afore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit. 9. On the whole, l am of the opinion that there is no merit in the afore writ petitions, insofar as the petitioners seek to challenge the additional demand pursuant to the inspection. Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand dismissed.” 4. Challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4107 of 2019, the appellant is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. This writ appeal was one filed with a delay of 40 days, which was condoned by the order dated 29.05.2025 in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025. 5. On 29.05.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. This writ appeal was one filed with a delay of 40 days, which was condoned by the order dated 29.05.2025 in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025. 5. On 29.05.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. The learned Standing Counsel for KSEB took notice for the respondents. While ordering the writ appeal to be listed on 31.07.2025, the Division Bench passed an interim order, which reads thus; “Post on 31.07.2025. In the meanwhile, there will be an interim stay of operation of judgment dated 31.01.2025 in WP(C) No.4107/2019 and all coercive steps pursuant to the above judgment including disconnection of electricity supply to consumer No. LCN 4/4212 under jurisdiction of Electrical Section office of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Cherai in Ernakulam District of the appellant, pending disposal of the writ appeal, on condition that the appellant pays the principle amount of Rs.18,27,763/- to the respondents within a period of three weeks from today.” 6. Pursuant to the direction contained in the interim order dated 29.05.2025, the appellant-petitioner paid a sum of Rs.18,27,763/- to KSEB on 17.06.2025. The learned counsel for the appellant has made available for the perusal of this Court a receipt bearing No.REC/608586/25-26 dated 17.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Finance Officer in the office of the 3 rd respondent Special Officer (Revenue) regarding the payment of Rs.18,27,763/-. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB for the respondents. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would confine the arguments against the demand made by KSEB towards statutory interest, since the judgment of the learned Single Judge is one rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J. [(2023) 11 SCC 700] 9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this writ appeal, is one rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., (2023) 11 SCC 700 . By that judgment the Apex Court reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and Others, 2017 (3) KHC 563 . 10. By that judgment the Apex Court reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and Others, 2017 (3) KHC 563 . 10. As per sub-section (6) of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, when a person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of 30 days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of 16% per annum compounded every six months. 11. When the liability of the appellant-petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment of the assessed amount within the specified time limit is statutory in nature, in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the demand made by KSEB against the appellant-petitioner, demanding payment of statutory interest. In such circumstances, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, declining interference on the judgment dated 31.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4107 of 2019.