Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Pleadings are complete. As requested and agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court. Further, in all these petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Besides oral submissions, the parties have also filed written arguments.

2. Aggrieved by the assessment orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2003”) and demand notices under Section 3 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Act”), these petitions (except Writ Petition Nos. 22263 of 2008, 22365 of 2008, 22678 of 2008, 21986 of 2008, 22367 of 2008 and 18542 of 2008) have been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders/notices. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding respondents not to realise any amount pursuant to the impugned orders. Further notification dated 27.6.2006 issued by the State Government notifying ‘assessing officer’ under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 has also been challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires and illegal. In Writ Petition Nos. 22263 of 2008, 22365 of 2008 and 22678 of 2008, only provisional assessment notice issued by the Executive Engineer concerned as well as the Government notification dated 27.6.2006 have been challenged. In Writ Petition Nos. 21986 of 2008 and 22367 of 2008, the demand notice dated 29.3.2008 under Section 3 of 1958 Act as well as the notification dated 27.6.2006 are under challenge.

3. For the purpose of brevity the facts have been taken from the leading Writ Petition No. 21073 of 2008 (Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others).

4. The petitioner is running an Oil Expeller at his premises situated at Kheragarh, District Agra for which he obtained an electric connection with the contracted load of 21 Horse Power. The electricity is being distributed in District Agra by respondent No. 2 namely, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “DVVNL”). It is said that on 22.9.2007 a new meter was installed at the petitioner’s premises. While taking away old meter, it was mentioned in the meter sealing certificate dated 22.9.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) that the old meter shall be tested in the laboratory of respondent No. 2 on 4.10.2007 in the presence of the consumer or his representative. The petitioner submits that on 4.10.2007, in the test laboratory, old meter was checked and nothing wrong was found therein for the purpose of revenue assessment as is evident from page 52 of the paper book which is a test report duly signed by the Assistant Engineer (Meters), Electricity Test Laboratory, Electricity Test Division, Agra. However, on 18.3.2008 the respondent No. 3, i.e., Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, DVVNL, Agra issued a provisional assessment notice stating that on 15.1.2008 during an inspection the petitioner was found committing certain irregularities/theft of energy on account whereof an assessment of Rs. 3,83,622/- was imposed. The petitioner was given seven days time to submit his objection. Copy of the said notice dated 18.3.2008 is on record as Annexure-1-A to the writ petition. Thereafter on 29.3.2008 a demand notice under Section 3 of 1958 Act was issued for recovering Rs. 3,83,644/- which included the amount of provisional assessment as mentioned in the notice dated 18.3.2008 as well as the process fee of Rs. 22/- being cost of notice under Section 3 of 1958 Act. It is this act of the respondents which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In all other matters the assessment orders and demand notices are similar except of amount and in some cases date of inspection is different which is given in the form o