The court ruled that failure to serve a provisional assessment order invalidates its enforcement, emphasizing that appeals must be decided on merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Order :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the VCR dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure-1), provisional assessment dated 21.02.2016 (Annexure-2) and notice dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure-5), issued by the respondent department may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-8) and order dated 16.02.2017 (Annexure-15), passed by the respondent department may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent department may kindly be directed to refund back the disputed amount of Rs. 1,68,913/- and penalty amount deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.

(iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent department may kindly be directed to referrer the matter before the Settlement Committee.

(v) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition and as argued by the counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had obtained an electricity connection with the capacity of 59 HP in the year 2011 from the respondent- Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. On 06.01.2016, at around 02:00 PM, the vigilance committee conducted an inspection on the site of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was consuming electricity load of 86.6 HP and, thereafter, prepared a Vigilance Check Report (hereinafter referred to as “VCR”), wherein a note was made for preparing the assessment, as per the Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2003”) and, thereafter, to undertake the recovery. It was stated in the report that a caretaker on behalf of the petitioner was present there, however, he refused to sign the VCR. It has further been averred that thereafter provisional assessment order dated 21.02.2016 for amount to the tune of Rs.1,68,912.50/- was raised by the respondent department. However, the case of the petitioner is that, he was never served the copy of the above mentioned provisional assessment order and straightaway in the month of July, 2016 an amount of Rs.1,50,851.10/- was added in the monthly electricity bill while showing it as the due amount for the last month. It was on 10.08.2016 that the petitioner received a notice under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 directing him to deposit the sum of Rs.1,68,913/-, being the assessment amount, in seven days of receipt of the notice. On receiving the same petitioner submitted an appeal-cum-representation before the Superintending Engineer (B/C), Jodhpur Discom, Bikaner submitting that the gate keeper was present at the time of inspection and was having no knowledge whatsoever and, therefore, he has refused to sign. It was further submitted that there was no discrepancy in the load and, therefore, re-inspection may undertaken. The petitioner further gave out the details of the load which was mentioned in the VCR and which was present (as per the petitioner) at the site in question. The Superintending Engineer (B/C), Jodhpur Discom, Bikaner made a note upon the representation directing the petitioner to deposit 50% amount. In pursuant to the noting and as per the provisions of 127 of the Act of 2003, the petitioner was deposited the 50% amount on 17.08.2016 itself and also deposited Rs.500/- as registration fees on 22.08.2016.

3. The matter was, thereafter, placed before the Settlement Committee, and the Settlement Committee had dismissed the appeal-cum-representation of the petitioner while observing that the same was not filed within a perio