Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P.Dube for the respondents. The pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide this writ petition finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 as also consequential recovery proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order.

3. The petitioner is a Stone Crushing Unit situated at Village Ram Nagar, Post Office Chirgaon, District Jhansi. It had obtained an electric connection bearing No. 1801/037231 with contracted load of 99 HP i.e. 73.85 KW. The petitioner claimed of having made a complaint of non proper functioning of the meter in the month of July 2003. The respondents authorities changed the meter on 21.8.2003 issuing a sealing certificate, (a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

4. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 16.10.2003 by Executive Engineer, E.D.D.-II, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”) referring to the sealing certificate dated 21.8.2003 and the check meter report, and it is alleged that company’s CT seals and lab seals installed on the meter were found tampered hence an assessment of theft of electrical energy is justified. Applying prescribed formula of LxFxDxH the Assessing Officer proposed provisional assessment of Rs. 21,56,630/-.

5. The petitioner submitted reply stating that in the sealing certificate dated 21.8.2003, concerned Junior Engineer has not mentioned anything or alleged tampering of any of the seal and there is no observation about even a suspicion of theft of electrical energy in the above. The Junior Engineer found meter burnt and therefore changed it by a new one. Copy of sealing certificate was not supplied to petitioner though signature was obtained thereon. Now at this stage without informing anything to the petitioner, proposing a huge assessment alleging theft of electrical energy is nothing but a sheer harassment and mala fide action on the part of the Assessing officer. He also pointed out that mere mention of the word “tampering of the body seal” without specifying the manner etc. of such alleged tampering is not sufficient. Further, even the proposed assessment is wholly illegal and has not cared of the relevant provisions. The supply of electricity in the area is available only for a very short period but in the proposed assessment hours of supply has been taken 17 which is totally fanciful and imaginary.

6. No further order was received by petitioner from Assessing Authority. Instead, straightway, a demand notice dated 1.12.2003 under Section 3 of U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Act”) was issued for recovery of Rs. 21,56,650/- which included proposed assessment amount and notice expenses. The petitioner’s electrical connection was also disconnected on 26.2.2004.

7. The petitioner then challenged demand notice dated 1.12.2003 in writ petition No. 10148 of 2004 whereupon this Court stayed recovery proceedings subject to payment of Rs. 5 lacs. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.12.2003 (sent by registered post) communicated the petitioner (though petitioner denied its receipt) that his representation/reply to the proposed assessment has been considered. Rejecting all the objections of the petitioner the Assessing Officer advised the petitioner to pay the assessed amount. The aforesaid order was actually produced before this Court in the above mentioned writ petition No. 10148 of 2004 and thereupon the Court vide order dated 3.5.2005 permitted petitioner to avail remedy of appeal observing that since petitioner had already deposited Rs. 5 lacs, he should further deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- whereupon his appeal shall be entertained and decided on merits and no further amount shall be recovered till the appea