JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic,J.

W.P.(C)No. was filed by the respondent challenging Exts.P8 and P10 orders passed by the appellate authority under the Electricity Act and the consequential order passed by the assessing officer. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge held that the quantification of the energy consumed is erroneous and remitted the matter for re-assessment, taking into account the consumption pattern of the respondent, after affording them an opportunity in the matter. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

2. The respondent, owner of a hotel, is a consumer of the appellants availing supply under LT VII A tariff. On WA NO. 786/2014 2

18.9.2007, there was an inspection by the APTS Squad. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared on inspection, which shows that the energy meter was found to be tampered with and that there was unauthorised additional load of 9KWA. In exercise of their powers under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the energy consumed was estimated and Ext.P3 bill demanding Rs.21,11,757/- was issued. Ext.P3 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.28281 of 2007, which came to be disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment relegating the respondent