By the Court.—We have heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’).

3. Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, refuting the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents, submitted that in the facts and circumstances where the matter has traveled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and on remand made by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2013 passed on earlier writ petition No. 67867 of 2009 of the petitioner, the matter was sent to the Executive Engineer for passing a fresh assessment order hence there is no justification to relegate the petitioner back to the alternative remedy of appeal. He has also submitted that since the action of the authorities is illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner hence the writ petition would be maintainable and is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.

4. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (6) ADJ 660 (DB). He has also placed reliance upon another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, 2006 (II) RJ 1365.

5. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner with respect to provision assessment bill under Section 126 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 127 of the Act.

6. However, in order to appreciate the rival contention with respect to the question whether the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances, is liable to be relegated to avail alternative remedy, it would be necessary to state the facts in short, which are as under :

7. Petitioner is a partner of Firm M/s Classic Industries and carrying on business of stainless steel sheet. A load of 400 KVA has been sanctioned for the purpose. On 3.9.2009, a checking was carried out by the Engineers of the respondents-Corporation. In the said checking, the PT and CT chamber of 11 KV metering cable was found to be O.K. However, another special checking was conducted on 7.9.2009. A checking report was prepared and observations were made by checking team. Anomalies found were recorded in the report and memo was given to the Police Station requesting to lodge an F.I. R. of theft of electricity, on the basis of which first information report under Section 135 of the Act was lodged. Provisional assessment notice dated 15.9.2009 was issued to the petitioner proposing an assessment of Rs. 1,28,46,211/-. Petitioner filed a detail objection to the provisional assessment on 14.10.2009 denying the allegation of theft of electricity. vide letter dated 27.10.2009, petitioner was asked to appear before the Executive Engineer on 5.11.2009. On the said date, again a detail objection was filed with the prayer that provisional assessment notice be withdrawn. Executive Engineer vide letter dated 18.11.2009 informed regarding the rejection of the objection of the petitioner and finalized the assessment. Final assessment notice dated 18.11.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No. 67867 of 2009. Initially, the Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 17.12.2009 against which the Corporation filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 26.4.2010, in Civil Appeal No. 3887 of 2010, with the consent of the p