D/L.06.

February 18, 2026.

KAUSHIK WPA No. 373 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2025)

Sharma Ayurved Private Limited & Anr.

Vs.

The CESC Limited & Ors.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya Mr. A. N. Bhattacharyya Mr. Varun Kothari Mr. Arya Bhattacharyya … for the petitioner Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy … for the CESC Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder Mr. Indranil Halder … for the private respondent Mr. Himadri Sikhar Chakraborty Ms. Susmita Saha … for the State CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for restoration. In view of the sufficient cause and cogent reasons disclosed by the petitioner, the order dated 28 August, 2025 is recalled. CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. WPA 373 of 2023 is restored to its original file and number.

By consent of the parties, WPA 373 of

2023 is taken up for hearing.

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against a final order of assessment dated 5 September, 2022.

Briefly, the petitioner is a partnership firm and was carrying on business at Hooghly. Subsequently, the partnership firm stood converted to a private limited company.

It is alleged that the business of the petitioner was for all purposes closed and the factory premises abandoned. On 11 August, 2022, a Provisional Assessment Order has been passed by the respondent no. 2 alleging theft of electricity and unlawfully carrying a ‘toto’ charging station.

It is submitted that an influential representative of a political party, Tarak Singh had been unauthorisedly carrying on such activity from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner fairly submits that their only fault was that they did not surrender the above electricity connection. By a final order of assessment dated 5^th September, 2022, the Assessing Officer has rejected the contentions of the petitioner and raised a demand for Rs.13,92,910/- as payable from the petitioner. The petitioner assails the final order of assessment in this proceeding on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On behalf of CESC Ltd., it is submitted that the final order of assessment warrants no interference at all. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has been given an adequate hearing. It is also submitted that all the contentions of the petitioner have been taken into consideration before passing the impugned order.

The private respondent and the State are also present.

A perusal of the final order of assessment would demonstrate that in passing the same, the Assessing Officer has held as follows:

“I have carefully perused the facts and circumstances of the matter. I have also carefully considered the verbal submissions made by Habib Hassan and Om Nath Sharma as well as the written objection filed by Om Nath Sharma. They have admitted unauthorized use of electricity at the premises and it is also admitted that supplies are still in the name of Sahara Ayurvedic Products.”

It is now well settled that reasons form the cornerstone of any order whether judicial or quasi judicial. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah vs. District Collector, Chittoor (2019) 4 SCC 500, it has been held as follows:

“40. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review.”

Similarly, in Uniworth Resorts Limited and Ajay Prakash Lohia vs. Ashok Mittal & Ors.

(2008) 1 CalLT 1 it has been held as follows:

12. Judicial orders of such nature need to meet the twin tests of “why” and “what”. It is the “why” that sustains the “what”. Reasons are the safeguard against the ipsi dixit of the decision-making process. They discuss how the judicial mind has been applied to the matter in issue and convey the nexus between the matters that have been considered and the conclusion based thereon. The justification and the reasonablen