Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—We have heard Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajenda Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits having been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Monex Glass Private Limited has challenged the order dated 30.9.2009, by which the Executive Engineer finalized the theft assessment on the basis of checking dated 16.8.2009. Petitioner has also prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the meter testing report dated 3.9.2009 as illegal and arbitrary.

4. Brief facts of the case which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are:That the petitioner, had a contracted load of 498 KVA from the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter called the “Corporation”). Two meters have been installed by the Corporation i.e. main meter in the meter room and one out door meter installed outside the factory premises at the same line. On 20.8.2008, the Officers of the Corporation inspected the main meter and outdoor meter and no irregularity was found. Inspection report dated 20.8.2008, was prepared accordingly. On 28.4.2009, inspection was again carried out by the Officers of the Corporation alongwith authorized representatives of the manufacturing company namely: M/s. Secure Meters (Pvt.) Limited, but nothing incriminating was found either with the main meter or with the outdoor meter. Meter Sealing Certificate dated 28.4.2009 was prepared by the inspection team. An Office Memorandum dated 19.6.2009, was issued by the Corporation forming a Committee for testing of meters. On 16.8.2009, Officers of the Corporation inspected the factory premises of the petitioner. Inspecting team also obtained MRI report. New meters were installed at the factory premises of the petitioner and both the old meters were taken out and were given to the Assistant Engineer (Raid) for further investigation. On the same date i.e. 16.8.2009, Meter Sealing Certificate No. 103 was prepared. On 19.8.2009, the checking team required the petitioner to return the Meter Sealing Certificate No. 103 dated 16.8.2009 and thereafter the checking team prepared another Sealing Certificate No. 105 dated 16.8.2009. On 18.8.2009, the Superintending Engineer, issued a letter directing the Executive Engineer to obtain an acknowledgement from the petitioner to appear on 27.8.2009 in the office of the Corporation at Agra. The said letter was served on the petitioner’s Manager working in the factory, who on the said letter endorsed that for some work, petitioner has gone out of India and he shall return on 10.9.2008, he prayed for a date to be fixed. Another letter dated 25.8.2009 was issued by the Superintending Engineer addressed to the Executive Engineer in which it was mentioned that according to the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter called the “Code 2005”) consumer has to be informed within seven days. It was stated in the letter that 3.9.2009 is the date fixed for opening of the meter and owner of the firm, Manager or any other representative be asked to ensure his presence on 3.9.2009 in the office of the Managing Director of the Corporation at Agra. On 25.8.2009, the Manager of the factory again wrote a letter that the firm owner is out of India and a date be fixed after 10.9.2009. He further stated that he being the Manager of the factory, cannot go out of the factory. He prayed for next date. On 3.9.2009, the meter was opened before a Committee constituted by office order dated 19.6.2009. The inspection report dated 3.9.2009 found meters body, seal, lead seal, and ultra-sonic welding steps were in order. However, it observed that foreign wires were found connected and remote control and sensing device was found inside the meter. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner on