The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of communication of assessment orders to the consumer deprived the consumer of the opportunity to contest the orders, rendering any disconnection of electricity supply unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing since they arise from connected issues. The petitioner Sukumar Das is a consumer of electricity under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), having Consumer ID No. 212096986.

2. a team of the WBSEDCL held an inspection of the petitioner's Husking Mill on May 24, 2012 in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that, as on that day, the said unit was closed. a person, in the version of the petitioner a stranger, was arrested by the inspecting team on the allegation of theft of energy. The said person was subsequently enlarged on bail and ultimately acquitted in a criminal proceeding from all charges of theft.

3. although a provisional assessment order was apparently passed by the distribution licensee, the petitioner contends that the same was never communicated to him but was sent only to the said stranger who had been arrested. Hence, the petitioner argues that the petitioner had no scope to raise any objection to the said provisional assessment within the purview of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003 act').

4. No final assessment order having been communicated to the petitioner subsequently, he was also no able to prefer any statutory appeal within time in terms of the provisions of Section127 of the 2003 act. as a result, the petitioner moved the first writ petition bearing W.P.a. No.12586 of 2013 praying for reconnection of electricity to his unit.

5. Only on November 9, 2021, Memo No. BD/E/1819 was issued by the Divisional Manager, Belda Division of the WBSEDCL demanding from the petitioner-consumer an amount of Rs. 4,81,062/- as purported arrear dues, payable within the due date of November 24, 2021. In the said Memo, the distribution licensee threatened that the power of the petitioner's premises would be disconnected and not resumed unless such amount was paid. The said Memo has been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.a. No. 19468 of 2021 and is annexed at page 27 (annexure P-7) of the said writ petition.

6. No demand was ever raised by the distribution company for any outstanding dues from the petitioner, except normal current bills which were continuously sent to him. as such, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have prior notice of the final order of assessment and/or the provisional order of assessment at the relevant juncture.

7. Vide Order dated June 10, 2013 passed in W.P.a. No.12586 of 2013, previously numbered as W.P. 12586 (W) of 2013, a learned Single Judge of the this Court directed reconnection of the electric supply to the petitioner's unit on payment of Rs.4,50,000/- by the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

8. On a subsequent appeal having been preferred against the said order dated June 10, 2013, bearing FMa No.2758 of 2013 and a connected application bearing CaN 7865 of 2013, a Division Bench of this Court took up the appeal for hearing on October 3, 2013 and modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the reconnection of electricity supply to the Husking Mill of the petitioner of the petitioner was subjected to payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-, also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending writ petition(s).

9. Thereafter the petitioner, as mentioned above, has been allegedly paying regularly all current bills raised by the distribution licensee but on November 9, 2021, the impugned Memo was issued with a threat of disconnection in default of payment of Rs.4,81,062/-.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand of Rs.4,81,062/- was made without any copy of the provisional or final order of assessment being served on the petitioner. The disconnection was effected at the petitioner's Husking Mill without any intimation to the petitioner at any point of time. as such, it is argued that the pe