Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate and Sri B.C. Rai, Advocate, have argued on behalf of petitioners. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate, have appeared and argued the matter on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 adopted the arguments of Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate and did not add anything.

2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to decide under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

3. This writ petition involves certain intricate technical aspects relating to electricity supply, apparatus, particularly energy measuring digital meters, computerized data and print outs. On the request of Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, two officials of respondent No. 3 were permitted to explain these technical aspects. They are, (1) Sri K.K. Singhal, Superintending Engineer, Circle Amroha; and (2) Sri Krishan Pal, Executive Engineer (Test), Bijnor.

4. At one stage, while explaining technical aspects, Sri K.K. Singhal took a new stand on behalf of respondents and, therefore, his statement was recorded with consent of both the parties. The statement has been duly signed by him and is made part of record.

5. Besides, petitioners filed an earlier writ petition No. 4487 of 2010 challenging assessment order as well as appellate order. The writ petition was allowed and the appellate order was set aside. The matter was remanded to Appellate Authority to re-decide the appeal. Therein some documents were filed by respondents alongwith their counter-affidavit. On the request of parties, record of earlier writ petition was also called. The documents filed by respondents alongwith counter-affidavit in earlier writ petition have been referred to frequently during the course of arguments by both the sides and with their consent, I have also looked into those documents. For clarifying the MRI statements, some copies of M.R.Is. (Meter Reading Instruments downloaded statement) were placed by respondents before the Court during course of argument and with consent of parties those documents have also been seen and made part of record of this writ petition.

6. It is too late in the day to imagine a civilized society living without electricity. It has got the status of ‘Necessity’. Life without electricity is unimaginable. An electrical establishment is a high capital low intensive unit. Investment is extremely high. Comparative return is much lower. Probably it is for this reason, not only in the State but in the entire Country electricity, basically and mostly had been generated, transmitted and distributed by undertakings, owned or controlled by Government, Central or Provincial. In the State of U.P., it was earlier some local bodies and private companies and thereafter U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSEB’) which looked after entire work of generation, transmission and distribution for almost four decades and a little more. The electricity constitute part of welfare activity of the Government and, therefore, for political and other reasons, a recurring but huge loss suffered by UPSEB, running in thousands of crore swallowing substantial public fund in the process. More or less this had been the story of all the Electricity Boards in the Country. In post 1990 era, the policy underwent a major review. Participation of private sector in Energy sector was sought to be encouraged. With this view, the old laws namely, The Electricity Act, 1910 and The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ceased journey in 2003. It preceded a five years experimental enactments like Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, certain provincial enactments like U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1999”) whereby UPSEB was disbanded trifurcating in three Companies, though completely owned by Government but having further scope of privatization