An appellate order must be reasoned and specifically address the core objections raised by the party, including requests for evidence and statutory compliance, to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Whether approved for reportint g?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Notice. Mr. Mohit Sankhayan, learned counsel and Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3 and 2, respectively.

In view of the nature of grievance urged for the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

2. Respondent No.3-Assessing Officer-cum-Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd., Baddi, H.P., issued a provisional assessment order to the petitioner on 24.05.2024 for alleged unauthorized use of electricity, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per the provisional assessment, respondent No.3 on the basis of MRI records observed that load of 150.6 KVA was being used by the petitioner against the sanctioned contract demand of 95 KVA. The Assessing Officer provisionally assessed the payable electricity charges at Rs. 24,85,277/-. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional assessment. On considering the objections, respondent No.3 issued final assessment order on 08.07.2024 for Rs. 7,38,828/-.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the final assessment order dated 08.07.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The petitioner urged before the Appellate Authority that the final assessment order was solely based upon MRI records; Petitioner had not been provided with a copy of the MRI records, which prevented it from effectively defending its case. In the absence of MRI records having been provided to the petitioner, it was not even in a position to challenge the accuracy of the said MRI data. The principles of natural justice had been violated. The petitioner also argued that the provisions of Section 126 of the Act had been violated, as under the said provision respondent No.3 was required to conduct inspection of the place/premises in question. It is only thereafter that the Assessing Officer could come to the conclusion about the person in question indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. The petitioner alleged that no inspection was ever conducted of its premises by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer about the petitioner having unauthorizedly used electricity, was not justified.

The petitioner also raised a dispute with respect to the period for which the assessment in question could have been determined by the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it had applied for enhancement of power load from 100 KW to 150 KW, for which the Deputy Director of Industries, Solan had issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the respondent department.

The respondent Board defended the issuance of the final assessment order against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act. According to the respondent Board, scrutiny of the MRI records had revealed petitioner having unauthorisedly drawn load in excess of the sanctioned load of 100 KW. Initially, the provisional assessment was made in the sum of Rs. 24,85,277/-, but upon considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the amount was reduced to Rs. 7,38,828/-. The respondent Board asserted that due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner for filing its objections to the provisional assessment order. The respondent Board also maintained that there was no need for inspection of any place or premises of the petitioner either before issuing the provisional asse