M.M.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner in this case has prayed for direction for not giving any further effect to the purported provisional pilferage bill (annexure P-4) to the writ application and for a further direction upon the respondent to reconnect/restore the electricity connection to him.
(2.) The Ld. Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the purported provisional pilferage bill i.e., annexure P-4 to the application is, on the face of it, arbitrary and illegal. It was argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner before passing any order as contemplated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. It was further argued that save and except that annexure P-4 no provisional order of assessment was ever served upon the writ petitioner and so he was prevented from raising any objection against the purported provisional bill.
(3.) The Ld. Advocate submitted that the said provisional pilferage bill should be set aside. The Ld. Advocate in support of his contention that when the provisional bill is found to be illegal and not made in accordance with the provision contained in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the same is liable to set aside and on that score relied on a decision reported in (2005)2 WBLR (Cal) 870 where a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to set aside the provisionally assessed bills in that case. However, it appears from the concluding paragraph (25) of the judgment that the Learned Single Judge was pleased to observe:- "It would, however, be to the respondent no.4 to make his best judgment under sub-Section (1) of Section 126, if he so desires for reasons to be assigned by him". ;