JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. Both the writ petitions are interrelated and as such taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order. PREFACE: 3. The Petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 08.12.2023 in Appeal No.4/2023 in WP(C) No.81/2024. The reassessment bill so prepared in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 08.12.2023 in Appeal No.4/2023 i.e. the Bill dated 30.12.2023 is the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.646/2024. BRIEF FACTS: 4. A Tea Estate in the name and style of Rosekandy Tea Estate is a consumer of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (for short ‘APDCL’) under the Cachar Electrical Circle since 1978 in the category of HT, Tea, Coffee and Rubber etc. 5. It is relevant to take note of that in the year 2010, an agreement was entered into by and between the Rosekandy Tea Estate (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner's Tea Estate’) with APDCL. In terms with the said Agreement dated 02.09.2010, the sanctioned load was 747 KVA which is equivalent to 635 KW. The connected load was 746 KVA which is equivalent to 634.061 KW. Taking into account that the Petitioner's Tea Estate falls within the category of tea, coffee and rubber, the seasonal contract demand was 485 KVA which is equivalent to 412 KW. This seasonal contract demand was for the period from April to November. During the off- season, the agreed contract demand was 300 KVA which is equivalent to 255 KW. The off-season contract demand was for the period from December to March. 6. It is very pertinent to take note of that at the time when the agreement was entered into on 02.09.2010, the list of electrical connected load as on 07.10.2010 was furnished wherein the total connected load was shown as 634.172 KW. The said list of electrical connected load is a part of the agreement dated 02.09.2010 which is Annexure-2 to WP(C) No.81/2024. 7. The said list of electrical connected load is a part of the agreement dated 02.09.2010 which is Annexure-2 to WP(C) No.81/2024. 7. The materials on record further show that in the year 2017, another agreement was entered into by and between the Petitioner’s Tea Estate and the APDCL whereby the sanctioned load was 747 KVA (635 KW), connected load was 747 KVA (635 KW) and the seasonal contract demand was 485 KVA (412 KW) and the off-seasonal contract demand was 403 KVA (342.55 KW). 8. At this stage, it is very pertinent to take note of that after the agreement was entered into on 17.07.2017, an inspection was carried out on 22.08.2017. The said document is kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”. In terms with the said inspection so carried out, it was found that the connected load was 635 KW corresponding to 747 KVA. 9. The materials on record further show that on 24.05.2018, an inspection was carried out in the Petitioner's Tea Estate and it was found that within the premises of the Petitioner's Tea Estate, the total connected load was 804 KW. In addition to that, it was also found that there was excess load drawal of 253.64 KW against irrigation. Accordingly, the total detected load was 804 KW + 253.64 KW = 1057.64 KW. 10. Basing upon the said inspection carried out, a provisional bill was submitted to the Petitioner under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’) on 14.06.2018 thereby assessing that the Petitioner's Tea Estate was liable to pay an amount of Rs.54,65,023/- (Rupees Fifty four lakh sixty five thousand twenty three only). 11. The Petitioner filed objection against the provisional assessment. Thereupon, an order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.09.2018 whereby the provisional assessment amount was increased to Rs.55,75,045/- (Rupees Fifty five lakh seventy five thousand forty five only). 12. The Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act of 2003. The Appellate Authority vide an order dated 08.12.2023 interfered with the final assessment bill by opining that the final assessment bill was prepared in respect to the entire detected load of 1057.64 KW at the twice rate for 12 months less already paid fixed charge for the period. The Appellate Authority vide an order dated 08.12.2023 interfered with the final assessment bill by opining that the final assessment bill was prepared in respect to the entire detected load of 1057.64 KW at the twice rate for 12 months less already paid fixed charge for the period. The Appellate Authority held that assessment bill should have been made only as regards the excess load detected of 422.64 KW (497.22 KVA) instead of 1057.64 KW (1244.28 KVA). Accordingly, the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 directed that the reassessment bill be prepared on the quantum of excess 422.64 KW (497.22 KVA) load found connected for a period of 12 months at the double the tariff prevailing at the respective period. It was also observed that if any advance payment and over drawal penalty were recovered from the appellant during that period of 12 months, the amount shall be deducted from the said bill. The Petitioner being aggrieved, filed WP(C) No.81/2024 challenging the said order dated 08.12.2023. 13. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 10.01.2024 issued notice. It is further seen from the records that on 18.01.2024, the Assistant General Manager, IRCA, APDCL, Meherpur, Silchar had served the Revised Reassessment Bill dated 30.12.2023 upon the Petitioner. In terms with the said Revised Reassessment Bill, the Petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.12,60,063/-. 14. The second writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.646/2024 was filed by the Petitioner challenging the reassessment bill dated 30.12.2023. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 09.02.2024 passed an interim direction that the final bill dated 30.12.2023 shall not be acted upon, subject to the condition that 50% of the said bill is paid to the Respondent Authority within a period of 10 (ten) days. 15. Pursuant to the said order dated 09.02.2024, the writ petition being WP(C) No.646/2024 was again listed on 19.02.2024 when a payment receipt dated 16.02.2024 of an amount of Rs.6,30,032/- was produced before this Court and this Court issued notice making it returnable by 4 (four) weeks. 16. This Court has duly taken note of that in pursuance to the notice being issued in both the writ petitions, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in WP(C) No.81/2024. 16. This Court has duly taken note of that in pursuance to the notice being issued in both the writ petitions, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in WP(C) No.81/2024. The Respondents in their pleadings have supported the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 stating inter alia that the same was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2003 read along with the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) and CEA Installation and Operation of Meters Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 17. Mr. M. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Appellate Authority had erred law in directing that the bill should be made on the excess load of 422.64 KW without taking into consideration that the electrical equipments in respect to the six irrigation projects were actually connected to the D.G. Sets. The learned counsel submitted that the bill should have been directed to be calculated on additional load of 253.64 KW and not 422.64 KW. 18. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another Vs. Sri Sitaram Rice Mill reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 that it would be a case of unauthorized use of electricity in the circumstance where there is a consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned and connected load. 19. The learned counsel referring to the various bills enclosed to the writ petitions submitted that the meter of the Petitioner was an MDI meter and as such, it can be very well noticed as to what was the maximum demand. He therefore submitted that it is only when the Petitioner had exceeded the maximum demand beyond the contract load, the Petitioner can be penalized only to that extent and not beyond that. He therefore submitted that the directions so passed in the impugned Appellate Order that the Petitioner has to be imposed with electricity duty for additional load of 422.64 KW is not inconsonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sitaram Rice Mill (supra) 20. He therefore submitted that the directions so passed in the impugned Appellate Order that the Petitioner has to be imposed with electricity duty for additional load of 422.64 KW is not inconsonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sitaram Rice Mill (supra) 20. The learned counsel further submitted referring to Clause 7.4.2(i)(c) of the Regulations that wherever electronic meters are installed and load curves are studied periodically, the period of unauthorized use of electricity could be limited to the exact period as could be determined scientifically. He therefore submitted that the method of assessment of the demand charge in the case of excess/unauthorized load ought to have been directed to be computed by taking into consideration Clause 7.4.2(i)(c) of the Regulations. 21. Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents fairly submitted that taking into account that the inspection was carried out on the 22.08.2017 and there was nothing found that the Petitioner had unauthorized connected load, the impugned order can be modified for a period after 22.08.2017 till the date of the inspection. The learned Standing counsel referred to Clause 9.10 of the Regulations and submitted that till regularization of the increase in the connected load, the excess/unauthorized load so connected has to be treated as unauthorized use of electricity and the Petitioner in the instant case was found to have excess and unauthorized connected load to the tune of 422.64 KW on the date of inspection carried out on 24.05.2018. He therefore submitted that under such circumstances, the assessment is required to be carried out in terms with Clause 7.4.2.(iii)(1) of the Regulations. 22. The learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL further submitted that the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner pertaining to Clause 7.4.2.(i)(c) of the Regulations appears to be misconceived taking into account that the instant case is a case of unauthorized/excess load and not a case of use of electricity beyond the contract demand. He therefore submitted that as the Petitioner herein has installed electrical equipments which was upon inspection was found to be 1057.24 KW and was much beyond the sanctioned load of 635 KW, the impugned order so passed directing to assess the unauthorized/excess load of 422.64 KW calls for no interference. He therefore submitted that as the Petitioner herein has installed electrical equipments which was upon inspection was found to be 1057.24 KW and was much beyond the sanctioned load of 635 KW, the impugned order so passed directing to assess the unauthorized/excess load of 422.64 KW calls for no interference. The learned Standing counsel for the Respondents submitted that both the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Appellate Authority which are fact finding Authorities having reached the conclusion that electrical equipments were connected to the tune of 1057.64 KW, therefore, this Court may not like to interfere with such finding of facts unless a case of gross perversity is shown. The learned Standing counsel submitted that the materials on record would clearly show that it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had connected beyond the sanctioned load and as such, the findings of facts so arrived at calls for no interference. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 23. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given anxious consideration to their respective submission. 24. The materials on record clearly show that the Petitioner had a sanctioned load of 747 KVA which is equivalent to 635 KW. The connected load as on 17.07.2017 was also 747 KVA (635 KW). 25. This Court finds it very pertinent at this stage to take note of the definition of “connected load” as defined in Clause 1.4.1.22 of the Regulations and the same is reproduced herein under: “ 1.4.1.22 ‘Connected load” expressed in kW, means aggregate of the manufacturer’s rated capacities of all energy consuming devices or apparatus connected with the Distribution licensee’s service line in the consumer’s premises which can be simultaneously used and shall be determined as per the procedure laid down in this Code. If rating is in kVA, the same may be converted to kW by multiplying the kVA by power factor of 0.85. If the same or any other Apparatus is rated by the manufacturer in HP, the HP rating shall be converted to kW by multiplying it by 0.746.” 26. If rating is in kVA, the same may be converted to kW by multiplying the kVA by power factor of 0.85. If the same or any other Apparatus is rated by the manufacturer in HP, the HP rating shall be converted to kW by multiplying it by 0.746.” 26. A perusal of the above quoted definition shows that the connected load means the aggregate of the manufacturer's rated capacities of all energy consuming devices or apparatus connected with the distribution licensee’s service line in the consumer's premises which can be simultaneously used and shall be determined as per the procedure laid down in the Regulations. It further stipulates as to how the KVA is to be converted to KW. 27. Clause 1.4.1.26 of the Regulations defines “Contracted Load” or “Contract Demand” and the same is reproduced herein under: “ 1.4.1.26 ‘Contracted load’ or “Contract demand” means the maximum demand in kVA, agreed to be supplied by the licensee and indicated in the agreement executed between the licensee and the consumer. In case, no agreement is made, the connected load will be provisionally treated as contract load, till the Agreement is made.” 28. A perusal of the above definition would show that the maximum demand in KVA agreed to be supplied by the licensee and indicated in the agreement executed between the licensee and the consumer is the Contract Demand. It also stipulates that in case, no agreement is made, the connected load will provisionally be treated as a contract load/contract demand till agreement is made. 29. Clause 1.4.1.68 of the Regulations defines the term “Sanctioned Load” and the same is reproduced herein under: “ 1.4.1.68 ‘Sanctioned load’ means the load in kW, kVA which the licensee has agreed to supply from time to time.” 30. A perusal of the above quoted clause would show that the Sanctioned Load means the load in KW, KVA which the licensee has agreed to supply from time to time. 31. This Court also finds it very relevant to take note of Clause 2.2.3 of the Regulations which relates to “Contract Demand”. Taking into account that the Petitioner is HP consumer, Clause 2.2.3(a)(ii)(b) is relevant and the same is reproduced herein under: “ 2.2.3(a)(ii)(b) The contract demand of a consumer may be revised once in a year. 31. This Court also finds it very relevant to take note of Clause 2.2.3 of the Regulations which relates to “Contract Demand”. Taking into account that the Petitioner is HP consumer, Clause 2.2.3(a)(ii)(b) is relevant and the same is reproduced herein under: “ 2.2.3(a)(ii)(b) The contract demand of a consumer may be revised once in a year. However, in case of seasonal industries, such as Tea, Coffee, Rubber etc, the consumer may declare maximum of two seasonal contract demands in a year, one for season and for off season period. The declaration shall have to be made to the licensee by 30 th September of the preceding year.” 32. A perusal of the above quoted clause would show that a contract demand of a consumer may be revised once in a year. However, in case of seasonal industries such as Tea, Coffee, Rubber etc., the consumer may declare maximum of two seasonal contract demands in a year, one for season and for off season period. 33. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take into account the agreement which was entered into by and between the Petitioner as well as the APDCL Authorities on 17.07.2017. 34. The sanctioned load of the Petitioner was 747 KVA i.e. 635 KW. The connected load means the electrical apparatuses which are connected with the APDCL service line was also 747 KVA (635 kW). Taking into account that the Petitioner is a Tea industry, the seasonal contract demand was 485 KVA (412.25 KW) during the period from March to November and the off-seasonal demand was 403 KVA (342.55 KW) i.e. from December to February. 35. This Court also takes note of the Inspection Report dated 24.05.2018 wherein it is seen that against the sanctioned loan of 635 KW, the Petitioner had its various electrical devices and apparatuses connected to the APDCL’s service line to the tune of 804 KW within its premises. In addition to that, it was also found during the inspection that six numbers of different irrigation points having a load of 253.64 KW was also connected with the APDCL’s service line in the Petitioner's premises. 36. Therefore, from the above, it would be seen that against the sanctioned load of 635 KW, the electrical devices or apparatuses connected to the APDCL's service line on the date of the inspection was 1057.64 KW. 37. 36. Therefore, from the above, it would be seen that against the sanctioned load of 635 KW, the electrical devices or apparatuses connected to the APDCL's service line on the date of the inspection was 1057.64 KW. 37. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of Clause 9.10 of the Regulations which stipulates that if there is any increase in the connected load over the sanctioned demand, the consumer is required to take action in terms of Clause 5.8.1 of the Regulations for regularizing the excess connected load. Failure to regularize the increase in the connected load would be treated as unauthorized use of electricity. Clause 9.10 of the Regulations being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 9.10 Extension and Alterations Should the consumer, at any time after the supply of energy has been commenced, desire to increase the number or size of lights, fans motors, etc. and/or add new appliance such as Air conditioner or Geyser, in his premises or in any way alter the position of his wiring therein, notice thereof and need to change the connected load if any, shall be sent in writing to the licensee. If as a result of such proposed extensions and alterations, there is possibility of an increase in connected load over the sanctioned demand; action as specified under this clause 5.8.1 of this Code shall be taken. Failure to regularize the increase in connected load will be treated as ‘Unauthorized use of electricity’ and action under clause 7.4 may be taken against it by the licensee.” 38. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the six irrigation points were not connected to the APDCL’s distribution line rather it was connected to generators. It being a finding of fact arrived at by the fact finding authorities and nothing could be shown that the basis on which the facts were arrived at were perverse, this Court cannot in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution sit in Appeal over such questions of facts already decided by the fact finding Authorities. 39. Therefore from the above, it is apparent that on the date on which the inspection was carried out, the competent authority found that electrical devices as well as the apparatuses of the Petitioner were connected with the APDCL’s service line to the tune of 1057.64 KW. 39. Therefore from the above, it is apparent that on the date on which the inspection was carried out, the competent authority found that electrical devices as well as the apparatuses of the Petitioner were connected with the APDCL’s service line to the tune of 1057.64 KW. The sanctioned load being only 635 KW, the non- regularization of the Sanctioned Load beyond 635 KW as per Clause 9.10 of the Regulations as above quoted would come within the ambit of unauthorized use of electricity. The resultant effect of the above is that the Petitioner had 422.64 KW of unauthorized excess load beyond the sanctioned load. 40. This Court further takes note of that the learned Appellate Authority had come to that conclusion that the Petitioner should be charged in terms with Clause 7.4.2.(iii)(1) on 422.64 KW for a period of 12 months. The question therefore arises as to whether the learned Appellate Authority could have directed the demand charge to be computed on 422.64 KW for a period of 12 months at double the tariff prevailing at the respective period. 41. For understanding the same, it is very pertinent to take note of Clause 7.4.2(iii)(1) which is reproduced here in under: “ 7.4.2(iii)(1) Demand charge in case of excess/unauthorized load Assessed Demand charge = 2 x {C x B x N} – D (in Rupees) Where, ‘A’ – denotes the authorized load as per agreement ‘B’ – denotes the total connected load detected at the time of inspection. ‘C’ – denotes demand charge applicable on the detected load as per tariff in force. ‘N’ – Number of months, duly taking account of fraction of a month ‘D’ – Demand charge if any paid for the disputed period on ‘A’. Note The excess load will be removed from supplier’s mains. However, the consumer may apply for the regularization of the load. In case any damage of transformer or any other appliances of the licensee due to this unauthorized extension of load, the cost will be realized from the consumer in addition to the assessment bill.” 42. The method by which the demand charge is to be computed in case of excess/unauthorized load is clearly stipulated. The variable ‘N’ so mentioned in the formula as quoted above is the number of months duly taking account of fraction of a month. The method by which the demand charge is to be computed in case of excess/unauthorized load is clearly stipulated. The variable ‘N’ so mentioned in the formula as quoted above is the number of months duly taking account of fraction of a month. In other words, the period would depend when the inspection was carried out and the information available with the authorities as to from when these is connection of excess/unauthorized load. 43. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Section 126 (5) of the Act of 2003 which stipulates that when the Assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that there is unauthorized use of electricity had taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which the unauthorized use of electricity had taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity had taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. It seems that the learned Appellate Authority was not informed during the course of the hearing that there was an inspection carried out on 22.08.2017 and as the said information was not placed, the learned Appellate Authority on the basis of Section 126 (5) of the Act of 2003 held that the variable “N” should be 12 months. However, the inspection report dated 22.08.2017, i.e., the document kept on record and marked with the letter “Y” clearly shows that on that very date, there was no connected load in excess to the sanctioned load. 44. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the opinion that there is a requirement for interfering with the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 insofar as the directions to make the assessment by applying the variable “N” by 12 months instead of the period after the inspection dated 22.08.2017 was carried out. 45. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of the hearing which was conducted by this Court on 03.02.2026 when Mr. S. Bose, DGM (Commercial and Revenue) APDCL was present. He submitted during the course of hearing that for ascertaining the variable ‘N’, there are various enquiries can be made including an enquiry as to when the apparatuses/electrical equipment which were connected to the APDCL’s service line were purchased. S. Bose, DGM (Commercial and Revenue) APDCL was present. He submitted during the course of hearing that for ascertaining the variable ‘N’, there are various enquiries can be made including an enquiry as to when the apparatuses/electrical equipment which were connected to the APDCL’s service line were purchased. In other words, the Respondent APDCL can try to ascertain the fact form when the unauthorized load can be said to have been connected. However, under no circumstances, the period can exceed prior to 23.07.2018. 46. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account that the inspection was carried out on 22.08.2017 and there was no infraction to the Act of 2003 as well as the Regulations found on 22.07.2018, the Assessing Officer would be required to carry out a further enquiry as to how the variable “N” would be applied in the present facts inasmuch as the same has to be subsequent to 22.08.2017 and till 24.05.2018. 47. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.4/2023 is interfered with only to the extent of directing the variable ‘N’ to be used as 12 months taking into account that on the date of the inspection i.e. on 22.08.2017, there was no unauthorized use of electricity found. (ii) The impugned re-assessment bill dated 30.12.2023 is also interfered with. (iii) The Assessing Officer who is the Respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.81/2024 and Respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.646/2024 is directed to make necessary enquiries as to how the variable ‘N’ can be applied in respect to the present dispute while computing the demand charge for unauthorized/excess load. For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that the unauthorized/excess load is 422.64 KW. (iv) This Court further directs the Assessing Officer that after making necessary enquiries, apply the variable ‘N’ which is the number of months duly taking account of the fraction of a month and thereupon issue a fresh assessment bill to the Petitioner. For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that the unauthorized/excess load is 422.64 KW. (iv) This Court further directs the Assessing Officer that after making necessary enquiries, apply the variable ‘N’ which is the number of months duly taking account of the fraction of a month and thereupon issue a fresh assessment bill to the Petitioner. (v) It is further observed and directed that in the circumstance, the fresh assessment bill so prepared pursuant to the directions above is less than the amount the Petitioner had already deposited pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the remaining amount shall either be refunded or adjusted against the future bills of the Petitioner. (vi) It is further observed and directed that in the circumstance, upon assessment being made pursuant to the above directions and the assessed amount is higher to the amount which the Petitioner had already deposited, the Respondent Authorities would be at liberty to take such course of action as provided under law. (vii) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.