By the Court.—Heard Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the matter, at this stage, under the Rules of the Court.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice dated 7.5.2012, Annexure-’7' to the writ petition, issued by respondent No. 3 requiring to pay a sum of Rs. 11,953/- pursuant to an assessment made on the basis of checking report No. 1198/14 dated 13.10.2011. It is said that a checking team consisting of two Junior Engineers, an Inspector, Sub-Inspector and a few constables of police made a surprise checking in village Rajpur Kalan, Tehsil Khatauli, police station Jansath, district Muzaffar Nagar and found, amongst others, the petitioner committing theft of electrical energy by extracting electricity for running sugar cane Kolhu from the transformer installed about 100 meter away, near the hospital, by connecting it with three core cable and a 15 H.P. motor. Ten meters cable was also seized for convenience by the checking team and a First Information Report was lodged, being Case Crime No. 275 of 2011, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Jansath, District Muzzafar Nagar on the same date.

4. The petitioner made a complaint in this regard to the higher authorities of the respondents pointing out that the alleged transformer where from it was said that the petitioner was committing theft of electrical energy, was already out of order since 28.9.2011 and several complaints were made by villagers for its replacement/repair, but the concerned Junior Engineer and the Sub-Divisional Officer did not listen their grievance unless their un-lawful demand is satisfied. Subsequently a false report was lodged against petitioner without caring to the fact that the transformer itself was lying defective since 28.9.2011, therefore question of extraction of electricity committing theft from the said transformer on 13.10.2011 could not have arisen. The aforesaid complaint was entertained by the Managing Director, Paschimanchal, U.P. Power corporation, Meerut and by letter dated 14.2.2012, he directed the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Muzaffar Nagar to verify the aforesaid complaint of villagers and submit report.

5. Instead of making any enquiry as directed above, the Executive Engineer issued a provisional assessment bill and a show-cause notice dated 8.12.2012 to the petitioner making provisional assessment of Rs. 11,953/-. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply/objection on 14.2.2012 and on the same date the Executive Engineer is said to have sent a letter i.e. dated 14.2.2012 informing the petitioner that the facts stated in First Information report are correct and copy of First Information Report is being sent to the petitioner. Thereafter an order was passed on 13.4.2012 stating that petitioner’s representation is rejected and he should deposit the amount of assessment. A copy of final assessment order dated 30.4.2012 is on record as Annexure-’6' to the writ petition. Pursuant thereto the impugned demand notice has been issued.

6. From a bare perusal, it is evident that the final assessment order is a Cyclostyled order wherein there are two options and the assessing authority is supposed to tick one of these two. The order is at page 46 of the writ petition. First option is that, “the representation sent by you has not been received within the period prescribed”; and, the second is, “the representation after consideration is being rejected.”

7. There is no third alternative like that the representation accepted, wholly or partly.

8. There is no scope of saying as to why the representation or the clarification given by the consumer is not acceptable. In fact the cyclostyled order shows complete absence of objectivity and non application of