Point of Law : Section 126 of the Act of 2003 empowers the Assessing Officer as designated in terms with Explanation (a) to Section 126 of the Act of 2003 to carry out the provisional assessment to the best of his judgment and thereupon to pass the order of provisional assessment, to hear the objections if so filed and to pass the final order of assessment.

JUDGEMENT :

Heard Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The instant writ petition has been file challenging the inspection report dated 09/10/2018, the final assessment order dated 03/12/2018, the final assessment bill dated 06/12/2018, the disconnection notice dated 29/12/2018 as well as for a direction to refund all the amounts realized in excess from the petitioner on the basis of the CT ratio of 50/5 Amps. instead of 25/5 Amps i.e. by applying the wrong multiplier factor of Rs. 3000/-instead of Rs. 1500/-against the various monthly energy bills right from the date of installation of Meter No. APDC 9614 together with interest as per Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity having authorized connected load of 1105KW = 1300KVA and contracted demand of 1001 KVA. On 9/10/2018, a technical inspection of the petitioner’s electrical installation was undertaken and after the inspection, an inspection report was prepared by the visiting APDCL officials showing that the petitioner’s connected load at 1156 KW=1360 KVA and thus, as per the inspection report, there was an excess load of 51 KW. Thereupon, the Respondent No. 2 herein, who was the Area Manager/the Assessing Officer issued a provisional assessment order dated 12/10/2018 along with the statement showing the reasons on the basis of the assessment in Format 15. Along with the provisional assessment order, inspection report in Format 14 and a provisional bill for Rs.35,23,421.58p. was also forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objection on 19/10/2018 before the Assessing Officer i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein.

4. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that the petitioner received its monthly bill dated 08/11/2018 covering the period from 01/10/2018 to 31/10/2018 which includes the date of inspection dated 09/10/2018. As per the said bill, the maximum demand for the month recorded by the MDI Meter operating in the petitioner’s industry was 795 KVA only i.e. even much below the contracted demand of 1001 KVA and the connected load of 1105 KW= 1300KVA. On the basis of the objection so filed by the petitioner, a hearing was taken up on 02/11/2018. Vide an order dated 03/12/2018, the Respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized use of electricity of 51 Kilowatt and accordingly issued the final assessment bill dated 06/12/2018 for an amount of Rs.3,11,888/-. The case of the petitioner primarily as could be seen from a perusal of the writ petition is that the inspection was not carried out by the Assessing Officer who had assessed and issued the provisional bill as well as the final assessment order dated 03/12/2018 and as such the said provisional assessment order as well as the final assessment order are in violation to Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003(for short the Act of 2003). It is also the further case of the petitioner that admittedly a MDI Meter has been installed and working at the petitioner’s industry. Referring to Clause 7.4.2 (iii) A (b) of the A.E.R.C. Electricity Supply Code, it is the case of the petitioner that in case of connection equipped with MDI Meter, no assessment shall be made for unauthorized extension over and above the connected load as per the agreement and penalty for drawal in excess of the contract demand shall be levied at 3 times the normal tariff for the portion of the demand exceeding the contracted demand. On the basis of the said Clause, it is the case of the petitioner that as admittedly in the petitioner’s industry, a MDI Meter has been installed and working, the question of assessment as has been done by the provisional assessment order as well as the final assessment order could not have been done.

5. This Court vide an order dated 10/01/2019 issued notice making it returnable by 6 weeks and in th