The duty of the Adjudicating Authority to examine and pass a reasoned order on the request for cross-examination, and the right of the petitioner to have the legality of the demand determined in the present proceedings.

T.S. Thakur, J. (Oral)-Issue rule.

2. Mr. K. Datta and Mr. Navin Chawla accept notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent, the petitions are heard for final disposal.

3. Aggrieved by a bill for payment of Rs. 10,20,626/ - raised against her by the respondent, the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6630/2007 filed W.P. (C) 14772/2006 which was heard and eventually disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 25th September, 2006. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, II (2006) SLT 723=11 (2006) CLT 75 (SC)=AIR 2006 SC 1445, the Court held that a right of cross-examination was not inbuilt in the adjudicatory process before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority was, however, duty-bound to examine the request of a consumer for permission to cross-examine the witness and pass a reasoned order on the same if the request was being rejected. The petition was with those observations partially allowed, the impunged bill set aside and the matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions.

4. Pursuant to the above order the assessing/ adjudicating officer has passed a fresh order dated 7th November, 2006 received by the petitioner in March, 2006 whereby he has reaffirmed the demand raised earlier. Aggrieved, the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6630/2007 has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the demand as also the speaking order passed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner has, in addition, challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 53(IV) and Annexure XIII of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007. The provisions of Regulation 26(IV) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards - Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002 and the LDHF formula mentioned in the Tariff Order, 2005-06 have also been assailed by the petitioner as ultra vires of Sections 126 and 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. In W.P. (C) 6491/2007, the petitioner has similarly assailed the vires of the provisions mentioned above and challenged a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,52,165/- raised against him on account of the alleged theft of electric energy.

6. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Gupta made a short submission in support of the petitions. He argued that the Assessing/Adjudicating Officers had failed to comply with the directions implicit in the observation made by this Court in the previous round of litigation between the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6630/2007 and the respondent. He submitted that "I after the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer, the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6630/2007 had specifically prayed for an opportunity to cross-examine the members of the inspecting team who had reported the alleged theft against the petitioner. He drew our attention to para 10 of the reply in which the said request was made in the following words:

"That I also want to cross-examine the members of the Inspecting Team who have alleged allegations against me. Each and every allegations of theft alleged by the team is disputed. The inspection team has mentioned the wrong connected load and has falsely mentioned about the tampering of the seals and the meter. I want to cross-examine the Inspecting Team on the above aspect of the case to defend myself against the subject show-cause notice. I am not given the opportunity to cross-examine; the same shall be against the principles of natural justice. I have not committed any theft of electricity."

7. Mr. Gupta submitted that although the request for an opportunity to cross-examine the members of the inspecting team was made in specific words and although this Court had in the previous round of litigation clearly observed that once such a request was made, the Assessing/ Adjudicating Officer was duty-bound to pass a reasoned order on the same in case the request was being rejected, the Adju