IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot enhance an assessment bill without a cross-appeal and must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing notice of new evidence to the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the APDCL, representing respondent nos.1 and 2. None appears on call for the respondent no.3.

2. The appellate order dated 15.02.2017, passed by the prescribed Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the revised assessment bill dated 18.03.2017, issued by the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APDCL for short) have been assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The background facts leading to this case is that on 11.04.2016, an inspection team of 8 (eight) APDCL personnel had inspected the electricity metering installation in the premises of the petitioner firm. During such inspection, the APDCL inspection team found that the left side seal of the cabinet box which housed both the LT and CT meter was broken. Accordingly, the said inspection team decided that it was a case of meter tampering. Resultantly, while the electricity power connection of the petitioner was disconnected and a provisional bill for a sum of Rs.5,02,925/- was served on the petitioner. On payment of Rs.2,51,463/- made to the APDCL, the electricity power to the establishment of the petitioner was restored. On assessment bill having been served on the petitioner, the assessment proceeding was taken up and the Area Manger, IRCA, APDCL. The said authority had heard the representative of the petitioner and by an order dated 19.04.2016, the said authority had held that it was a case of interference with the metering installation and accordingly, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in respect of the provisional bill and the said provisional bill served on the petitioner was held to be treated as the final assessment bill.

4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 19.04.2016, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Appellate authority i.e. the respondent no.3 heard the matter on 13.02.2017 and by the impugned order dated 15.02.2017, accepted the contention of the respondent no.2 that it was a case of malpractice by interfering with the metering system. However, after taking note of the petitioner’s electricity consumption pattern produced by the respondent no.2 at the time of hearing for the period prior to the date of inspection and after replacement of the new meter on 16.04.2016, had arrived at a conclusion that there was a huge loss on account of consumption till the date of inspection due to negligence of the petitioner within its premises. Accordingly, it was ordered that the final assessment bill for Rs.5,02,925/- confirmed by the Area Manager, IRCA on 19.04.2016 was to be withdrawn and a direction was issued for preparing a fresh assessment bill for a period of 12 months as per clause 4.2.2.4 [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation, 2004 (1st Amendment) 2007] (hereinafter referred to as 2004 Regulation), with further direction to serve the same to the petitioner for payment after adjustment of payment already made.

5. Having extensively heard the learned counsel for both sides, the basic point of determination which has arisen for adjudication in this case is whether the appellate order directing (i) the APDCL to withdraw the final assessment bill, and (ii) for preparation of a fresh assessment bill as per clause 4.2.2.4 of the 2004 Regulation is liable to be interfered with.

6. It has been forcefully contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 to the effect that disputed questions of facts has been raised in this writ petition and moreover, it was submitted that under the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appellate authority is vested with the power to pass an “appropriate order”. Therefore, it was submitted that as because under Clause no.4 (xiii) of the “Statement of Obj