JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal and Rajeev Misra, JJ.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as "PVVNL') and its Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as "EE, EUDD, Gorakhpur") assailing order dated 28th August, 2018 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as "ECGRF") rejecting petitioner's application for recall of order dated 16.6.2017, passed ex parte by respondent No. 2. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 5.6.2007 passed by respondent No. 2, ECGRF originally whereby on the complaint of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 has held that petitioners have illegally recovered ` 96,320/- from respondent No. 3 and is bound to refund same and has consequently issued direction for refund of said amount alongwith interest at the rate 6% per annum.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are that M/s. Navya Motors situated at Mohalla Nausad, Sadar Gorakhpur has a commercial electric connection with contracted load of 20 kilowatt bearing SC No. 5360049295. Rate schedule for that purpose of computation of electricity consumption charges payable by consumer i.e., respondent No. 3 is governed by Tariff, LMV2. For recording quantum of consumption of electricity, electronic computerized meter No. UPU20183 was installed at premises of respondent No. 3 i.e., Consumer.

3. On 21.1.2017 an inspection was carried out at the premises of Consumer by E.E., EUDD, Gorakhpur pursuant to Chief Engineer (Distribution) Gorakhpur's (hereinafter referred to C.E.(D), Gorakhpur) letter dated 20.1.2017. Inspecting authority checked meter No. UPU20183 and found current and voltage of all three faces in meter, correct.

4. Thereafter again on 30.1.2017 checking was made and current and voltage on all three phases of meter was found correct. A report was submitted by EE, EUDD, Gorakhpur on 30.1.2017 to this effect but he also added that in the MRI report of meter, current without volts was shown for 24 times between 29th June, 2015 to 6th May, 2016. In this regard, MRI report was also appended to letter dated 30.1.2017. Despite the fact that no defect was found in the meter as such, EE, EUDD, Gorakhpur i.e., petitioner No. 2, on the basis of MRI report, proposed assessment under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter after referred to as "Act 20031) and sent a show-cause notice dated 4th February, 2017 informing respondent No. 3 that meter was found running slow by 33%, therefore, an assessment of ` 96,302/- is proposed where against respondent No. 3 may submit objection, if any, within 15 days.

5. The Assessment-sheet, which is placed on record at page 61, shows that assessment was made for the period of June, 2015 to June, 2016. Aforesaid amount was deposited by respondent No. 3 but then he submitted a complaint dated 22nd February, 2017 to ECGRF alleging that under threat of disconnection, respondent-3 was compelled to deposit ` 96,320/- though no defect in meter was found during checking, made twice, therefore, aforesaid amount be directed to be refunded.

6. Petitioners, it appears, despite notice issued by ECGRF, did not submit response. Hence respondent No. 2 decided the matter ex parte vide order dated 6.5.2017 and directed refund of ` 96,320/- to Consumer. Petitioners filed recall/review application which has been rejected by order dated 28.8.2018.

7. Learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that MRI data shows defect of "Current without Volts' and Current Terminal shorting on different occasions, hence petitioners were entitled to make assessment under section 126 of Act, 2003 as it amounts to "unauthorized use of electricity". MRI report being computerized record is conclusive material to prove that electricity meter has been tempered and same could not have been ignored unless 'Co