ORDER :

1. The case comes up on an application (Inward No. 01/2022) for early hearing of the matter.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the factory premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Vigilance Department of the respondents on 16.07.2003 and certain infirmities were found in the electricity meter. It was reported by the Inspecting Team that the petitioner’s electricity meter had been tampered with. A report to that effect was prepared which is placed on record as Annexure-2.

5. In pursuance of the Annexure-2, straightaway, a demand of Rs. 3,62,603/- was raised against the petitioner. Against the raising of the said demand by the respondents vide Annexure-3 dated 11.08.2003, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned senior counsel submits that the action of the respondents in straightaway raising the demand vide Annexure-3 is in contravention of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2003”).

7. Learned senior counsel further submits that after the inspection was conducted by the respondents, on the basis of the report so prepared, the respondents were supposed to make the provisional assessment and the order of provisional assessment was required to be served upon the petitioner to afford the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before passing a final order of assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner was not served with the provisional assessment order and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before raising the demand and, therefore, the final assessment order in the present case has not been passed.

8. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of M/s. Shiv Parwati Marble and Others vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Another, 2010 (3) WLC 308 (Raj.).

9. Learned senior counsel prays that since the action of the respondents is in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2003, therefore, the demand raised vide Annexure-3 may be quashed and set-aside.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the inspection being conducted by the Vigilance Department of the respondents, the electricity meter was found tampered with which shows that there was theft of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner and, therefore, the order of demand of Rs. 3,62,603/- (Annexure-3) is just, proper and correct. He further submits that the petitioner was served with a copy of provisional assessment which is annexed with the reply to the writ petition, however, he is not in a position to show the actual service of copy of provisional assessment upon the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner committed theft of electricity, no leniency in the present case is required to be extended in favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed.

12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant documents placed on record.

13. On the inspection being conducted of the premises of the petitioner by the Vigilance Department, it was found that the electricity meter of the petitioner was tampered with and, therefore, a report to that aspect was prepared which is placed on record as Annexure-2. In these circumstances, the respondents were required to proceed against the petitioner in consonance with Section 126 of the Act of 2003 which for brevity is reproduced as under:

126. Assessment:

(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of rec