By the Court.—The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Demand Notice dated 29th October, 2010 (Annexurre 5 to the Writ Petition) issued by the respondent No. 3 requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,84,892/-.

2. It appears that checking was allegedly made in the premises of the petitioner on 22nd October, 2010, and theft of electricity was allegedly detected. Copy of the Checking Report dated 22nd October, 2010 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition. The said Checking Report does not bear the signature of the consumer (petitioner).

3. It further appears that a Notice dated 29th October, 2010 (appearing at page 26 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition) was sent to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that an amount of Rs. 1,84,892/- was provisionally assessed against the petitioner, and in case the petitioner wanted to file any objections, the same be done within seven days of the issuance of the said Notice dated 29th October, 2010. A Demand Notice dated 26th October, 2010 (appearing at page 27 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition) under Section 3 of the U.P. Government Electrical Under-Taking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 was also enclosed with the said Notice dated 29th October, 2010. A Bill dated 26th October, 2010 (appearing at page 28 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition) showing the calculation in respect of the Provisional Assessment was also enclosed with the said Notice dated 29th October, 2010.

4. The petitioner has thereupon filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

5. We have heard Shri R.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Smt. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record.

6. Smt. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has obtained instructions in the matter.

7. Shri R.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, and has submitted that the procedure laid down in the said provisions has not been followed in case of the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that the Notice dated 29th October, 2010 was issued to the petitioner giving only seven days time for filing objections while the provisions contained in Clause 8.1 (b) (iii) require Show-cause-Notice giving 15 working days time for filing objections.

9. It is further submitted that the Demand Notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Government Electrical Under-Taking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 was issued on 26th October, 2010 even without waiting for the objections to be filed by the petitioner against the Provisional Assessment and disposing of the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

10. In reply, Smt. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the procedure as laid down in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 has been followed in the present case.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

12. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 lays down as follows:

“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 records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such