Virender Singh, J. - (1.) At the very outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Board, states that the assessment made by the Authorized Officer of the Board during the pendency of the main writ petition, as one finds from para 2 of the impugned judgment, was wrongly labelled under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Act of 2003) whereas, it is a case of theft in which a provisional assessment is made under Third proviso to Sec. 135. According to Mr. Kumar, once the appellant who has already deposited the assessed amount, may be in two parts initially, before the Writ Court and the balance amount during the pendency of the instant Letters Patent Appeal pursuant to order dated 18th March, 2015, it can challenge the provisional assessment only on limited grounds of jurisdiction, manifest error in calculation and, arbitrariness or mala fide, otherwise, after the civil liability is determined in accordance with law, the appellant can claim refund, if the civil liability determined is less than the amount already deposited by the appellant.
(2.) According to Mr. Kumar, the instant appeal in the present set of circumstances, thus, has been rendered infructuous.
(3.) Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that may be the appellant sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant detailed calculation for provisional assessment after the case of theft was registered against him and that during the pendency of the writ petition the final assessment order was also passed, the appellant was throughout under the impression that the assessment made by the Board was in terms of Sec. 126 of the Act of 2003 and not under Sec. 135 of the Act of 2003. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that therefore, the view taken by learned Single Judge that the appellant is required to file an application before the Special Judge under Sec. 154 of the Act of 2003, is an erroneous view on the face of it.;