JUDGMENT : P.M. MANOJ, J. 1. The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P7, P8, P9, P10, P11 and P15. Specifically, Ext.P7 is the site mahazar; P8 is the penal bill; P9 is the provisional assessment order; P10 is the calculation statement; P11 is the notice directing regularisation; and P15 is the final assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the processing, production, and sale of wheat products. With the intention of entering the retail segment via 'Chakki Atta' consumer packets, the petitioner submitted an application to enhance the contract demand from 280 KVA to 400 KVA. 3. During the pendency of this application, an inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s premises on 17.01.2017 by the Anti- Power Theft Squad, Kottayam, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Consequently, Ext.P7 site mahazar was prepared. This was followed by Ext.P9 provisional assessment order, accompanied by Ext.P8 penal bill for Rs.1,17,36,306/- and Ext.P10 calculation statement. Subsequently, a notice directing regularisation of connected load/contract demand was issued via Ext.P11. The petitioner submitted their objections and a detailed argument note, as evidenced by Exts.P12 and P13. Notwithstanding these submissions, the 2 nd respondent proceeded to finalise the assessment. 4. The primary thrust of the petitioner’s argument is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that the inspection conducted under Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 (for short ‘the Act’) is vitiated, as the inspecting authority was not the one contemplated under the provision. Furthermore, it is contended that no inspection was conducted in accordance with Regulations 77(1) and (2) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (for short ‘the Supply Code’) and the inspection as carried out stands in violation of Regulation 99(8) of the Supply Code. 5. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no 'unauthorised use of electricity' to warrant proceedings under Section 126 . As defined therein, 'unauthorised use' refers to the usage of electricity by any artificial means, by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee, through a tampered meter, for a purpose other than that authorised, or for premises other than those for which supply was granted. As no such findings were made at the petitioner’s premises, it is submitted that the petitioner falls within the exemption carved out under Regulation 153(15) of the Supply Code. 6. As no such findings were made at the petitioner’s premises, it is submitted that the petitioner falls within the exemption carved out under Regulation 153(15) of the Supply Code. 6. It is further contended that the Assessing Officer failed to inspect the premises as mandated under Section 126 of the Act and Regulation 155(2) of the Supply Code. These provisions specifically require the Assessing Officer to personally inspect the consumer’s premises before initiating provisional assessment proceedings. 7. In the present case, the site mahazar was prepared by a Sub-Engineer of the 1 st respondent, who does not qualify as an 'Assessing Officer' for the purposes of. Consequently, the mandatory statutory requirement of inspection by the designated Assessing Officer was bypassed during the inspection conducted on 17.01.2017. On these grounds, it is submitted that the orders and notices issued under Exts.P7 to P11 and P15 are ultra vires the Electricity Act and the Electricity Supply Code. 8. It is further contended that the 2 nd respondent lacked the authority to issue a penal assessment bill for excess connected load, especially since the petitioner had already applied for a load enhancement as evidenced by Ext.P6. Furthermore, the petitioner submits that the inspection was conducted in direct violation of Regulations 150, 151, 153(3)(b), 153(4)(b), 153(6), and 155(2) of the Supply Code. 9. Specifically, while a Sub-Engineer carried out the inspection and assessment, the 'Assessing Officer' under Section 126 of the Act has been strictly designated by SRO No. 229/2005 [G.O.(P) No. 21/2005 dated 16.07.2005]. This notification assigns the role of Assessing Officer for the Kerala State Electricity Board to the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section. Since a Sub- Engineer conducted the assessment, the entire inspection process is vitiated. Consequently, the provisional assessment based on Ext.P7 site mahazar and the subsequent proceedings under Exts.P8 to P11 and P15 are legally unsustainable. 10. The petitioner further raised contentions regarding the factual aspects of the connected load and other assessment-related issues. However, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, is primarily concerned with the illegality or arbitrariness in the inspection conducted under Section 126 , rather than the factual merits, for which an appellate remedy exists under Section 127. 11. 10. The petitioner further raised contentions regarding the factual aspects of the connected load and other assessment-related issues. However, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, is primarily concerned with the illegality or arbitrariness in the inspection conducted under Section 126 , rather than the factual merits, for which an appellate remedy exists under Section 127. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited several judgments concerning applications for load enhancement—specifically the judgment dated 11.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 1815/2025 (affirmed in WA No. 2301/2025) and the judgment in WP(C) No. 2824/2025. While those cases focused on enhancement applications, the primary question in the present case is whether the inspection itself is vitiated on account of being conducted by an unauthorised officer. Consequently, those decisions are not considered here. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court is barred from re-evaluating the factual merits of an assessment and should limit its Article 226 jurisdiction to jurisdictional aspects. Relying on Executive Engineer v. Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 , the respondents maintained that Section 126 procedures were adhered to, notwithstanding the petitioner’s specific challenge regarding the officer's capacity. Furthermore, the respondents relied on Sulabha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. KSEB & Others, 2017 (3) KHC 563 , which held that the physical presence of the Assessing Officer during the initial detection of unauthorized use is not a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under (1). Finally, citing KSEB v. Thomas Joseph, (2023) 11 SCC 700 , the respondents contended that consumption in excess of the connected load constitutes 'unauthorised use,' regardless of whether the load is within the same premises or tariff. 13. I have heard Sri.Julian Xavier for the petitioner and Sri.Ajith Joy, Standing Counsel for the respondent. 14. Given the factual disputes involved in this matter, I deem it appropriate to restrict the jurisdiction of this Court to the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner. To that end, it is necessary to consider Section 126 of the Electricity Act, which governs the assessment of unauthorised use of electricity at the consumer’s premises. 14. Given the factual disputes involved in this matter, I deem it appropriate to restrict the jurisdiction of this Court to the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner. To that end, it is necessary to consider Section 126 of the Electricity Act, which governs the assessment of unauthorised use of electricity at the consumer’s premises. Section 126 (1) provides: '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.' The subsequent sub-sections deal with the consequences of such assessment; however, these need not be addressed at this stage, as the primary issue is the fundamental validity of the assessment itself. 15. The regulatory provisions governing assessment are detailed under Regulations 150 through 155 of the Supply Code. Regulation 150 specifically prescribes the mode of inspection for premises and electrical installations. Sub-regulation (1) mandates that an Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Act, or an Authorized Officer under Section 135, shall promptly conduct an inspection—either suo motu or upon receipt of reliable information—regarding the unauthorized use or theft of electricity. 16. Sub-regulation (2) further provides that following such an inspection, the officer must prepare an inspection report if no irregularities are detected, or a mahazar if theft, unauthorized use, or any other irregularity is found. Additionally, Sub-regulation (3) specifies that the preparation of such inspection reports or mahazars must strictly adhere to the general provisions outlined in Regulation 151. 17. In this context, it is essential to examine the requirements for the preparation of a mahazar as prescribed under Regulation 151. Regulation 151(1) mandates that a detailed mahazar shall invariably be prepared at the site by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Act or the Authorized Officer under Section 135, upon detection of any unauthorised use of electricity, theft, or other irregularity. 18. Regulation 151(1) mandates that a detailed mahazar shall invariably be prepared at the site by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Act or the Authorized Officer under Section 135, upon detection of any unauthorised use of electricity, theft, or other irregularity. 18. Furthermore, Sub-regulation (2) stipulates that the 'mahazar shall be prepared at the site itself manually, with copies through carbon process.' The proviso to the said sub-regulation explicitly states that 'pre-written or printed forms shall not be used for the preparation of mahazar.' As this Court is presently focused on the fundamental nature and validity of the inspection, the remaining sub-regulations need not be addressed at this stage. 19. A perusal of the site mahazar (Ext.P7), prepared following the inspection conducted under Section 126 of the Act and in accordance with Regulation 151, reveals that the same must be executed by the designated Assessing Officer. 20. From the opening paragraph of the mahazar dated 17.01.2017, it is discernible that the document was prepared by a Sub-Engineer. The Explanation to Section 126 clearly defines an 'Assessing Officer' as an officer of the State Government, Board, or Licensee designated as such by the State Government. To this end, the State Government issued Notification SRO No. 229/2005 [G.O. (P) No. 21/2005 dated 16.07.2005], which identifies the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section as the designated Assessing Officer for the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). 21. In the present case, the premises fall within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, West Hill, Kozhikode (the 2 nd respondent). However, the mahazar was prepared by a Sub- Engineer, one Shri. Sundaran C. This is squarely contradictory to the legislative mandate that the mahazar shall invariably be prepared at the site by the Assessing Officer. 22. Furthermore, the regulations stipulate that the mahazar must be prepared manually at the site using a carbon process and expressly prohibit the use of pre-written or printed forms. These strict prescriptions under Regulation 151 reflect the legislative intent to ensure the direct participation of the Assessing Officer and to maintain the integrity of the assessment procedure, thereby avoiding procedural complications or arbitrariness. 23. These strict prescriptions under Regulation 151 reflect the legislative intent to ensure the direct participation of the Assessing Officer and to maintain the integrity of the assessment procedure, thereby avoiding procedural complications or arbitrariness. 23. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents based on the Sulabha Marketing case (supra), it is observed that the said decision merely clarifies that proceedings may be initiated on the basis of an inspection report submitted by a team of officers, including those of a rank higher than the Assessing Officer. In such instances, no illegality arises if the Assessing Officer arrives at a conclusion regarding the unauthorised use of electricity based on such collective report. 24. However, the facts of the present case are distinct. While an inspection was indeed conducted by the APTS Kottayam Unit (led by an Assistant Executive Engineer), the designated Assessing Officer under Section 126 remains the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, West Hill, Kozhikode. Crucially, the site mahazar was prepared by a Sub-Engineer, which stands in direct contradiction to the mandatory prescriptions of Regulation 151. 25. Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the site mahazar, Ext.P7. As a natural consequence, the provisional assessment order, the calculation statement, the notice for regularisation-Ext.P11, and the final assessment order-Ext.P15 are also hereby set aside. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.