Shantanu Kemkar, J. -- 1. By filing this intra Court appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8092/2011.

2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be stated, as under :-

On 20.6.2007, the vigilance team of the respondents carried out the inspection of the appellant’s premises. In the inspection, it was found that the appellant was indulged in unauthorized use of electricity and as such, the panchnama was prepared regarding the said unauthorized use of electricity. Thereafter, the assessing officer made a provisional assessment, as provided under section 126 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the Act) vide order dated 7.8.2007, assessing a sum of Rs. 5,06,056/- to be recoverable from the appellant. The said provisional assessment order dated 7.8.2007 was served upon the appellant on 25.8.2007. The appellant submitted objections against the said provisional assessment on 31.8.2007. However, even after receipt of the objections, no final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act was passed by the assessing officer. Thereafter, on 20.9.2011 the respondents disconnected the appellant’s electricity connection. Feeling aggrieved by the said action of disconnection of electricity connection, the appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings raised by the parties, dismissed the writ petition by accepting the respondent’s plea that the appellant has an alternative remedy available under the Act or approaching the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum (for short the Forum). The learned Single Judge also accepted the stand taken by the respondents, that the provisional assessment order itself is the final assessment order, which can be challenged in appeal under section 127 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents.

5. Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition, holding that the appellant has got an alternative remedy of approaching the Forum. According to him, the grievance against alleged unauthorized use of electricity would not lie before the Forum. He further argued that learned Single Judge has also ignored the fact that the respondents were required to pass a final assessment order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as the appellant had already submitted the objections (Annexure P/14) against the provisional assessment order and only that final order can be challenged under section 127 of the Act. In the circumstances, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and this appeal may be allowed, by directing the assessing officer of the respondents to consider the objections submitted by the appellant and pass a final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act.

6. Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the respondents that since the appellant did not submit the objections within 7 days of passing of the provisional assessment order and also did not deposit the assessed amount, the action taken by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. She argued that the appellant had committed theft of electricity as such a criminal complaint under section 135 of the Act was also filed against him. She further argued that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in directing the appellant to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the Forum and to file appeal under section 127 of the Act.