Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

2. Smt. Vimla Tiwari, Wife of Shri Bhaironath Tripathi has come to this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 28.12.2011 passed by Appellate Authority under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 2003”) rejecting petitioner’s appeal against assessment order dated 8.6.2010 made by Assessing Authority namely Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Rambagh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Authority”).

3. Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no checking was ever made at petitioner’s premises and a fictitious report was prepared whereupon entire proceedings have been initiated and impugned orders have been passed. The petitioner has throughout taken this stand but respondents have not at all cared to look into the grievance of the petitioner and on a forged and fictitious document prepared by respondents electricity supplier, impugned orders have been passed imposing a huge financial liability upon the petitioner. It is said that meter in question was installed at petitioner’s premises and remained intact as it is. This fact she reiterated in her reply supported by affidavit filed before Assessing Authority, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 8, but the respondents have not paid any heed to the said statement and instead have proceeded with the impugned assessment proceedings. The entire proceedings, therefore, are malicious in law and only to harass the petitioner for the reasons other than bona fide.

4. The facts as set out in brief in the writ petition may be summarised as under:

5. The petitioner is a resident of 43/9A Bakshi Khurd Daraganj, Allahabad. Her husband is retired from the post of Manager (Engineer) Grade V, Indian Telephone Industries Naini, Allahabad. An electric connection was given at the aforesaid residential address of the petitioner for domestic purposes in the year 1981 bearing S.C. No. 0688802. vide sealing certificate dated 5.11.2008, a new meter was installed at petitioner’s premises bearing No. G18872. The regular electricity dues were paid by petitioner. The receipt showing payment of electricity dues upto February, 2010 has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. A notice dated 23.3.2010 was served upon the petitioner by Assessing Authority alleging that petitioner’s electric connection at residential premises, as aforesaid, was inspected by Enforcement Squad/Competent Authority of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “UPPCL””) on 25.11.2009 and according to inspection report No. 27/1340 dated 25.11.2009, the petitioner was found using electricity by direct supply and the meter was missing from the premises. The above constitute an offence under Section 135 of Act 2003. The petitioner was required to submit her objection/defence, if any, within 15 days failing which appropriate assessment in accordance with U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Code 2005”) would be made. An assessment bill was also sent alongwith aforesaid notice for a sum of Rs. 1,97,815/- showing assessment made by Assessing Authority for a period of 365 days, i.e. for one year. The assessment bill, copy whereof is on page 39 of the writ petition on the top, mentions checking report No. 27/13110 and that the premises was checked by Sub-Divisional Officer/Junior Engineer. The reason for assessment was shown “theft of electricity”. A copy of checking report supplied to the petitioner is placed on record at page 43.

6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice in Writ Petition No. 20459 of 2010 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, permitting the petitioner to file objection subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- with A