Electricity – Objections – Petitioner has not been given advantage of filing of objections before passing of Final Assessment order—Impugned orders set aside

Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated May 23, 2013, annexure P-5, passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is owner in possession of plot No. D-142, Industrial Area, Phase VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali having electric connection of medium supply Account No. MS-57/459 having sanctioned load of 87.410 KV. The petitioner had been using the industrial plot and electric connection for running the industrial unit for processing of plywood, flush door, panel doors and windows etc. as sanctioned by the electricity department. The petitioner has employed about 15 workers for making panel and flush doors in the premises and has installed machines like wood planner, chain saw, chool machine, ara machine etc. The premises of the petitioner was inspected by Enforcement Officer/Executive Engineer of respondent Corporation on September 22, 2012 in the presence of the petitioner. Three rooms of the factory were inspected by the Enforcement Officer having three tubes, three fans, one computer and A.C. The Enforcement Officer prepared an ECR (Enforcement Checking Register) dated September 22, 2012, reporting as under:-

“WORKING OF METERS:-

“Meter pulse found blinking on all the 3 phase segments (1, 2, 3) of running load. Meter along with L.T.C. to be replaced and installed outside the premises, and be brought to ME lab duly seal packed for further hacking/ investigation. Meter be replaced with metering load skittering parameters and dry type. Sale of glass is being done at this premises. There is notice board for full payment at the site. Videography done. So it is a case of UUE. Action may be taken as per electricity regulations 36 and ESIM regulation 101-1 and other related matters.

Sd/-Enforcement Officer

Dated: 22.9.2012.”

3. It was also reported in the claim of “Details of Connection load”, that the total sanctioned load installed is 87.410 KW and being used only 14.634 KW. Petitioner was issued a provisional assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for short ‘the Act’, raising a demand of Rs.1,42,099/- on account of unauthorized use of electricity by respondents no.2 and 3 (PSPCL) on the allegation that the sale of glass is being done at the petitioner’s premises and the connection was issued under Industrial/ Udyog category but due to sale of glass as alleged by respondents No.2 and 3 the connection has become commercial. The petitioner claims that the allegations regarding sale of the glass are vague and flimsy. The provisional order for assessment dated December 5, 2012 has been appended as annexure P-1. The only objection in the inspection report is that sale of glass is being done in the premises, therefore, electric connection was being used for commercial purposes. The petitioner claims that objections were filed to the provisional order of assessment as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act. Petitioner claims that he was entitled to reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing of the final order of assessment besides an opportunity to file objections within 30 days from the date of service of the order of provisional assessment of the electricity charges. Copy of the objections dated December 5, 2012 has been appended with the petition as annexure P-2. Respondents No.2 and 3 passed final order of assessment on December 6, 2012 under Section 126 of the Act, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure P-3. Against the final order, annexure P-3, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act, vide memo of appeal annexure P-4. Respondent No.1 vide order dated May 23, 2013 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the