Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of the writ petition, the appeal and the application filed with certain modifications. On the allegations that there was insertion of a variant element in the meter to bye pass recording of actual consumption, First Information Report was lodged by the personnel of the appellant-Board. Provisional assessment was made. Thereafter there was disconnection of electricity supply. A writ application was filed by the respondent No. 1 making grievance that the disconnection of the supply was wrongly done and the provisional assessment as made claiming Rs. 2,50,046/- on the alleged ground of theft of electricity and/or tempering of the meter was not sustainable. Learned Single judge of the Calcutta High Court disposed of the matter in Writ Petition No. 2029 (W) of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellants were directed to restore electrical supply on deposit of Rs. 20,000/- by the writ petitioners. Appellants questioned correctness of the order on the ground that the disconnection of supply line was effected on 24.1.2006 in terms of the Regulation 5.2.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. Supply Code). The Division Bench referred to Regulation 5.2 and observed that the appellants have got right to disconnect supply line of electricity on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated. But the same is required to be done following a particular procedure. It was held that due procedure was not followed. The Division Bench held that under Section 126 of the concerned Electricity Act, 2003 the writ petitioner had a right of filing an objection thereof which has been filed by the writ petitioner under Section 126(3). The appellants are required to pass a final order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The writ petitioner also has a right to prefer an appeal under Section 127 of the Act against the final assessment order. The Division Bench, therefore, permitted the parties to pursue the remedy. It was, however, held that the disconnection of power supply was contrary to and was in breach of regulation 5.2 and the writ petitioner was, therefore, entitled to be compensated. Accordingly the cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Board submitted that approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. Admittedly, objection has been filed. It was noticed that no order on merits could have been passed. By order dated 11.08.2008 final assessment was directed to be done.;