- (1.) The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 2, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the order dated April 4, 2008 (at p.40) and reconnect his supply of electricity.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no idea why supply of electricity to him was disconnected. His further argument is that the provisions of s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could not be used for disconnecting the supply, since nothing in the section empowered anyone to disconnect supply of electricity to a consumer. Counsel for CESC has produced the order of final assessment dated April 28, 2008 made by the assessing officer of CESC under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. To this, counsel for the petitioner has said that the petitioner has no idea how and when the order of final assessment was made.
(3.) The order dated April 4, 2008 was the order of provisional assessment made by the assessing officer of CESC under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is evident from the order of final assessment dated April 28,2008 that the petitioner's son filed a written objection dated April 17, 2008; that as the petitioner's authorized representative the petitioner's son appeared before the assessing officer on April 25, 2008 and made submissions in support of the objections; and that after considering the submissions, the assessing officer made the final order under s. 126 determining the petitioner's liability for unauthorized use of energy at Rs. 2,11,706.;