Govind Mathur - (1.) THE petitioner, a body corporate, is having a large industrial electricity connection with sanctioned contract demand of 250 KVA. An inspection of the industrial unit run by the petitioner was made on 16.9.2001 and on basis of load survey report taken by Memory Recording Information (MRI) Device illegal extraction of energy without getting of actual consumption of electricity was noticed. A provisional assessment for Rs. 35,36,968/ - was made in accordance with clause 29(C) of the General Conditions of Supply, 1964 (GCOS), and the final assessment in a tune of Rs. 35,39,502/ - was made on 21.12.2001. An appeal preferred in the terms of clause 29(M) of GCOS against the final assessment came to be rejected on 13.1.2003. A petition for writ giving challenge to the final assessment and its affirmation by the appellate authority came to be accepted by this Court on 20.7.2007 in following terms: - The petitioner raised various objections with regard to assessment made and also relating to holding the petitioner guilty for abstraction of the electricity unauthorized. The appellate authority should have dealt with all the relevant contentions raised by the petitioner while examining correctness of the order passed by the assessing authority. I found the order passed by the appellate authority is illegal being a non -speaking and unreasoned one, as such, the writ petition assailing validity of the same deserves acceptance. For the reasons given above, the writ petitions No. 3681/2001 and 361/2002 are dismissed as becoming in fructuous. The writ petition No. 6089/2003 giving challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority is allowed and the order impugned is quashed. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh on or before 3rd December, 2007. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 3681/2001 shall remain in currency and in the event the appellate authority affirms the assessment, the amount will be payable to the respondent No. 1 capable of being subsequently adjusted against the petitioner's liability. In the event the petitioner be not held liable for any dues, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall be released.
(2.) A revised appeal then was filed by the petitioner as per clause 29(M) of the GCOS and that also came to be rejected on 3.6.2008, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The submissions of the petitioner are : - (1) the appeal was not considered by the appellate authority, but by the Chief Engineer (Commercial); (2)without prejudice to above, the appeal, if at all was considered, then that was by the Corporate Level Committee and not by the appellate authority as envisaged under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and (3)without prejudice to the above, the order impugned is an order non -speaking and unreasoned as much as the objections and contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were neither examined nor any finding is given thereon. A detailed reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent Electricity Supply Company meeting with all the arguments advanced.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties.;