Authorities must adhere to specific directives of the Appellate Authority, and any deviation or new assessments must follow proper legal procedures and prior decisions.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petitioners herein are aggrieved by the issuance of a bill bearing No.119 dated 25.07.2017 for Rs.1,22,45,649/- and the order dated 30.11.2017 on the ground that the concerned Respondent Authorities could not have exercised their authority beyond the directions passed by the learned Appellate Authority in the order dated 05.01.2016 in Appeal No.36/2015.

3. To appreciate the grievances of the petitioners, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings.

4. The record reveals that pursuant to an inspection being carried out, a Provisional Assessment Bill was prepared in terms with Section 126 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2003”). As per the said Provisional Assessment Bill, an amount of Rs.1,59,39,930/- was the amount assessed that the petitioners were liable to pay to the Respondent Authorities. It is very pertinent to mention that in the said Provisional Assessment Bill as well as the remarks so put in the said Provisional Assessment Bill, it was mentioned that there was tampering of the meter. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an Appeal against the said Provisional Assessment Bill. While the said Appeal was pending, the Final Assessment Bill was made thereby finalizing the assessment made in the Provisional Assessment Bill and a demand was made of an amount of Rs.1,59,39,930/-.

5. At this stage, it is very pertinent to mention that a perusal of the said assessment so made for the period from 01.03.2013 to 30.06.2014 and on the basis of which the amount of Rs.1,59,39,930.18 was arrived at would show that the period in question was taken from 01.03.2013 to 30.06.2014. Further to that, the calculation so made was based upon the average consumption taken on the basis of the consumer’s average maximum consumption during the period from 01.01.2012 to 30.03.2012, i.e. prior to the meter cover open (tampering) recorded in the meter. It is further seen that the amount of Rs.1,59,39,930.18p was arrived at by subtracting the amount what the petitioners paid during the said period from 01.03.2013 to 30.06.2014 from the amount so arrived at by taking into account the average maximum consumption of 4835 units per day and multiplying the same with the factor 2.

6. The record further reveals that the petitioners being aggrieved by the Final Assessment Bill preferred an Appeal before the learned Appellate Authority in terms with Section 127 of the Act of 2003. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for waiving the 50% deposit. The said application was not taken into consideration for which the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6807/2014. The record further reveals that vide an order dated 09.01.2015, the writ petition being WP(C) No.6807/2014 was disposed of thereby directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs by way of a Bank Draft within three days from the date of the said order and there was a further direction upon the respondent authorities to restore the electricity supply. In addition to that, the petitioner was given a period of six months to deposit the 50% of the demand so made in the Final Assessment Bill dated 19.11.2014. The learned Appellate Authority was directed to take up the said Appeal and decide the same within a period of three months subject to