Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.12.2004 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and appellate order dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), further quashing the order dated 28.8.2005 (Annexure 13-A to the writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disconnect the electricity of the petitioner and further to refund the amount already deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 11,45,000.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The petitioner is having a electricity connection from erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board in the year 1992. The sanction load of the petitioner is 175 K.V.A. For the purpose of drawing metallic iron wires. The tariff applicable is of H.V. II category with a trivactor meter for M.R.I. Downloading. The petitioner on the basis of bill raised by the respondent was always paying the amount which was being demanded by the respondent on the basis of consumption of the electricity. There was no complaint at any point of time against the petitioner regarding theft of energy. It was on 30.11.2004 that a raid was carried out at the premises of the petitioner and as per the checking report it was alleged that after checking of the C.T. Chamber there was an altercation in paper seal and the lock seal of the C.T. Chamber whereby the petitioner has manipulated the internal device of the C.T. Chamber. This observation was made without opening the C.T. Chamber. It is further mentioned that metering panel consist of C.T. Box, P.T. Box, the electrical meter and the adjoining cables of 11 K.V.A. Electrical supply line. All these things are inside big box made of iron which is known as metering panel or the meter cubical. In the checking report it was specifically observed that paper seal and lock seal were found to be disturbed without opening the meter cubical. It is further corroborated by the observation No. 4 of the checking report. On the basis of the aforesaid, the petitioner was suspected to be concealing electricity and accordingly the electric supply was disconnected. The petitioner disagreed with the finding by filing an application against the checking report disagreeing to the point No. 2 to this effect that without opening C.T. Chamber it is not possible to conclude anything about the internal device, which has been alleged to be manipulated.

3. A provisional assessment for an amount of Rs. 34,31,997/- was raised upon the petitioner which too are based upon fiddling the seals of C.T. Chamber by means of which it was alleged that internal device has been manipulated without opening the C.T. Chamber.

4. An objection was submitted to this effect that without opening C.T. Chamber it is absolutely impossible to make out any manipulation in the internal device of the C.T., as alleged by the respondents. Therefore, there cannot be any question of concealing of electricity in view of the aforesaid fact. Mere allegation of theft of electricity is insufficient and the same has to be established beyond doubt on the basis of evidence on record and the same has to be established by the assessing officer. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that on the same day about half hour before at 1.00 p.m. on 30.11.2004 meter reading was carried out and at that time there was no observation in the meter reading slip regarding tampering of the seals, therefore, within half an hour i.e. at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day this report regarding theft of electricity by the petitioner cannot be believed without opening C.T. Chamber. At point No. 4, it has been admitted that meter reading was carried out and seals were not tampered. At point No. 5, it was admitted that seals were found to be suspicious. At point No. 6, it was admitted that there was no need of opening the C.T. Chamber because seals were found to be tampered. At point No. 7, it was admitted that without opening C.T. Chamber since seals of C.