The provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 do not violate the principles of natural justice by allowing the same officer to initiate criminal proceedings and act as the Assessing Officer, and the rule that no body can be the judge of his own cause is not an inflexible rule of natural justice.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the writ-petitioner and is directed against a common judgment dated June 22, 2007 passed by a learned single Judge by which two different writ applications filed by the present appellant were disposed of. By the first writ application. The writ petitioner challenged the order dated 21st March, 2006 passed by the respondent thereby making a provisional assessment for payment of Rs. 2,85,406/- in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the allegation of pilferage of electricity and by the other one, the final order of assessment subsequently passed by the respondents was challenged.

2. As a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents as regards maintainability of the present mandamus-appeal on the ground that two different mandamus-appeals ought to have been preferred, we disposed of such preliminary point by directing the appellant to pay additional Court fees for challenging orders passed in two writ-applications and the appellant has complied with such direction.

3. It appears from record that on the allegation of theft of electricity the respondent authority disconnected supply of the appellant by taking aid of regulation 5.00 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2003 and subsequently, passed a provisional order in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, The respondents also started separate criminal proceedings in terms of Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. Against the order of provisional assessment, the first writ application was filed wherein a learned single Judge of this Court passed direction upon the respondents to restore electricity on condition that the appellant should deposit a specified amount directed by the learned single Judge. Pursuant to such order, the appellant deposited the amount and as such, the electricity was restored.

5. Subsequently, the respondent authority issued notice for hearing of final assessment but the appellant did not participate in the proceedings on the ground that as the writ application filed by the appellant against the provisional assessment was pending and there was interim order, the respondents could not proceed with the final assessment. Subsequently, the respondent authority proceeded ex parte against the appellant and passed final assessment order.

6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed another writ application and as stated earlier, the learned single Judge by a common order disposed of both the writ applications by approving the order of disconnection and as regards the final assessment order, gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

7. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with this mandamus appeal.

8. Mr. Bandopadhyay, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. According to Mr. Bandopadhyay, it would appear from the materials on record that for the purpose of disconnection of the supply of electricity, the passing of the provisional assessment order and also the final assessment order, a particular officer of the respondents inspected the property and he himself passed the provisional as well as final assessment order and also initiated the criminal proceedings. Mr. Bandopadhyay contends that according to the notifications issued by the State Government, the Officers of various categories are entrusted to act as Assessing Officer in terms of Section 126 and similarly various classes of Officers are invested with power to initiate the criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Act and in such circumstances, the person who had actually lodged criminal complaint and started criminal proceedings should not act as an Assessing Officer for the purpose of Section 126 of the Act. In other words, Mr. Bandopadhyay contends that it is against the principle of natural justice to permit a