In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the memo dated 24.6.96 and the bill dated 25.4.96 issued by the Area Manager. Industrial Revenue Collection Area of the Assam State Electricity Board demanding a sum of Rs. 10.33.200/- towards compensation for malpractice on the part of the petitioner assessed under clauses 21 and 22 of the Terms and Conditions for Supply. 1988 of the Assam State Electricity Board. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner company owns a Paper Mill at Amingaon, Guwahati in the State of Assam to which the electricity is supplied by the Assam State Electricity Board (for short ASEB). The total connected load of the said Paper Mill is 500 KW and an electricity meter is installed within the compound of the said Paper Mill for measuring consumption of electricity by the said Paper Mill and its colony. On 21.9.91. the said meter was inspected by the MTI Division. Guwahati of the ASEB and as per the inspection report since the meter and CT were found burnt, the meter and CT were replaced by two tested 3nes and the meter performance was found to be satisfactory. Thereafter, on complaint being made by the petitioner, the meter was again inspected by the MTI Division. Gauhati on 13.7.93 and the meter was then sealed. No inspection tvas carried out on the said meter during the years 1994 and 1995. On 18.4.96. : he MTI Division Guwahati again carried on inspection and the following remarks Acre noted in the inspection report. "Existing meter is checked today. The meter cabinet seal and meter cover seal are found broken. The TTB (Test Terminal Block) seal was found OK. As the meter cover and the meter cabinet seals were broken, the meter registering mechanism is accessible for tampering. It is a case of interference with the metering system. "Existing meter is checked today. The meter cabinet seal and meter cover seal are found broken. The TTB (Test Terminal Block) seal was found OK. As the meter cover and the meter cabinet seals were broken, the meter registering mechanism is accessible for tampering. It is a case of interference with the metering system. Also meter cover screw is found broken and temporarily attached by quick fix." Soon after the said inspection, the impugned memo dated 26 A.96 was sent by the Area Manager, Industrial Revenue Collection Area of the ASEB to the petitioner alongwith the impugned compensation bill for an amount of Rs.10.33.200/- said to be assessed under clauses 21 and 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB with a request to the petitioner to pay the amount of the assessment bill within 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill failing which the amount of assessment was to be treated as arrear dues and the service connection of the petitioner was to be disconnected as per section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court in the present writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. Mrs. M. Hazarika. learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned memo and the impugned compensation bill of Rs. 1910. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court in the present writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. Mrs. M. Hazarika. learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned memo and the impugned compensation bill of Rs. l0,33.200/- raised against the petitioner on the following grounds : (a) Principles of natural justice required that the petitioner was given a hearing before the aforesaid compensation bill was raised against the petitioner; (b) Under clauses 21 and 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB, the petitioner would be liable for compensation, if it is found that the petitioner has interferred or tampered with the meter and metering system and in the present case there is no evidence of such interference or tampering with the meter or metering system by the petitioner and the only evidence is that the meter cabinet and the meter cover seals were found broken; (c) Under sub-clause (c) and (d) of the clauses 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB, the ASEB can assess and recover the quantum of energy loss on the basis of demand factor, load factor and the connected load for a period of six month prior to the date of detection, but the impugned memo and the impugned compensation bill do not indicate that any energy loss has been-suffered by the ASEB; (d) The compensation bill of Rs. 10,33,200/- is excessive and has not been calculated in accordance- with the provisions of sub-clause (c) and (d) of clause 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB. 4. In support of her submission that the principles of natural justice required that hearing was granted before heavy amount of compensation of Rs. 10,33,200/- was assessed and demanded from the petitioner, Mrs. M. Hazarika relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Roy & others vs. Additional District Magistrate & others, (1985) 2 SCC 307 , and in the case of IJ Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs & others vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh & another, (1989) 3 SCC 202 , in which the Supreme Court has held that where rights of a person are adversely and prejudicially affected by an order made by an authority in a proceeding, such person is entitled to a pre-decisional notice irrespective of whether the proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in nature. 5. 5. Mr. NN Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the ASEB, on the other hand, submitted that it has already held by the Supfeme Court in the case of MP Electricity Board, Jabalpur & others vs. Harsh Wood Products & another, AIR 1996 SC 2258 , that it was not necessary to give a hearing to the consumer before making an assessment of compensation for malpractice adopted by the consumer. He also relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Aditya Rotor Spin (P) Ltd vs. UP State Electricity Board, AIR 1991 Allahabad 196, in which a similar view has been taken that principles of natural justice are not required to be followed, if it is found that the consumer was adopting any malpractice and theft of energy. He further contended that the petitioner at the time of entering into agreement with the ASEB for supply of electricity has agreed thatthe Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB will constitute rights of the consumer and the ASEB and clauses 21 and 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB did not provide for any show cause or hearing prior to assessment of compensation and instead provided that the consumer aggrieved by such compensation may deposit the said assessment amount and within a fortnight of his receipt of the assessment, appeal to the appropriate appellate authority as prescribed by the Board against such assessment. Mr. Saikia further pointed out that a learned Single Judge of the Court had the occasion to deal with the question as to whether an opportunity of hearing has to be given to a consumer before levy of compensation for malpractice in the case of M/s George Williamson (Assam) Ltd vs. Assam State Electricity Board and the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 12.2.96 in the said case has agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Aditya Rotor Spin (P) Ltd vs. UP State Electricity Board (supra) that the question of giving opportunity of hearing to consumer in case where the petitioner has been found guilty of malpractice does not arise. Mr. Mr. Saikia further pointed out that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1996, but the Division Bench did,not interfere with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Judge and instead directed that the appellant would file an appeal against the assessment and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs would be deposited by the appellant as condition precedent for filing the appeal and the appeal would be disposed of by the appellate authority by a speaking order. Mr. Saikia submitted that this civil rule be disposed of with a direction that the petitioner would deposit 50% of the compensation amount and file an appeal before the appellate authority and the same would be heard and disposed of by the appellate authority by a speaking order. 6. I have carefully perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Ganpat Roy & others vs. Additional District Magistrate & others (supra) and IJ Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs & others vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh & another (supra) cited by Mrs. M. Hazarika although general principles with regard to predecisional notice and hearing have been discussed. Whether such notice of hearing at predecisional stage is to be given before assessment of compensation for malpractice by a consumer did not arise for decision. In the case of MP State Electricity Board, Jabalpur vs. Harsh Wood Product & another (supra), the question as to whether the consumer was entitled to hearing before disconnection of power supply for non payment of compensation bill after detection of pilferage arose for consideration and the Supreme Court held in the said case that in view of the conditions to which the consumer had agreed at the time of installation and also prima facie conclusion reached by the authorities with regard to pilferage it was not necessary to give a hearing in that case and that the action taken by the appellant was not violative of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Aditya Rotor Spin (P) Ltd vs. UP State Electricity Board (supra), a similar question arose and the Allahabad High Court held that the regulations framed by the UP State Electricity Board under section 79 of the UP State Electricity (Supply) Act, 1949 were part of the contract between the Board and the consumer and were, therefore, binding on the consumer and regulation 22 of the said Regulations provided that supply of electricity to the consumer could be disconnected for non payment of dues without notice and hence principles of natural justice were not violated by disconnection of electricity supply, if it is found that the consumer was adopting any malpractice. In the case of M/s George WiHiamson (Assam) Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that whether or not a hearing should be given depends on and varies from facts to facts and he agreed with the view of the Allahabad High Court that no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the consumer guilty of malpractice before levy of compensation. The said view taken by the learned Single Judge has not been disturbed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1996. Instead Division Bench directed in its judgment dated 6.5.96 that if the appellant in the said case deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakhs out of the assessed compensation amount of Rs.63,86,688/- as condition precedent for filing of the appeal the appellate authority would dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant by a speaking order after hearing the appellant. Thus, Courts have decided the question as to whether a hearing should have been given to the consumer before assessment of compensation for malpractice and disconnection of electricity supply for non payment of the said compensation depending upon the terms and conditions of supply of electricity constituting the contract between the Elecrticity Board and 9 the consumer and the finding, prima facie or otherwise, relating to malpractice against the consumer. 7. In the facts of the present case, in the inspection report of the MTI Division, Guwahati, ASEB it has been stated that the meter cabinet and meter cover seals were found broken. 7. In the facts of the present case, in the inspection report of the MTI Division, Guwahati, ASEB it has been stated that the meter cabinet and meter cover seals were found broken. Mrs M. Hazarika contended that from the mere fact that the meter cabinet and the meter cover seals were found broken no finding, prima facie or otherwise, could be recorded that the meter and the metering system were tampered or interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. NN Saikia contended that from the fact that the meter cabinet and the meter cover seals were found broken at the time of checking, a presumption can be drawn that the meter and the metering system were tampered and interfered with. The petitioner's grievance is that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to it-before the huge amount of compensation bill was assessed and demanded from the petitioner under impugned memo and bill for the malpractice of interfering and tampering with the meter and metering system alleged against the petitioner. But clause 22 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB which formed part of the contract between the petitioner and the ASEB for supply of electricity does not provide for any hearing before assessment of such compensation and only provides that consumer aggrieved by such assessment of compensation may appeal to the appropriate appellate authority as prescribed by the Board against such assessment. Obviously, the appellate authority will have to .hear the consumer and pass a speaking order after meeting the points raised by the consumer in the appeal. In the event such a hearing is given and a speaking order is passed by the appellate authority, the principles of natural justice would be complied with at the post decisional stage. 8. The real prejudice that a consumer suffers in such a case of a post decisional hearing at the appeal against the compensation assessed under clause 22 (c) and (d) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 of the ASEB, is that he will have to first deposit the assessed amount and then file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. In the present case, for example, the petitioner will have to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,33,200/- assessed by the impugned memo and bill as compensation for malpractice. I find that by an interim order passed by this Court on 10.5.96. In the present case, for example, the petitioner will have to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,33,200/- assessed by the impugned memo and bill as compensation for malpractice. I find that by an interim order passed by this Court on 10.5.96. the operation of the impugned memo and bill was stayed subject to payment of 25% of the assessed amount by 7.6.96. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I direct that in case the petitioner has deposited or deposits the aforesaid 25% of the impugned compensation amount of Rs. 10,33,200/- and files an appeal within 15 days from today against the impugned memo and bill for compensation amount, the petitioner would be heard by the appellate authority and his appeal would be disposed of in accordance with law by a speaking order meeting all the points raised by the petitioner in the said appeal. 9. It would be open for the petitioner to take all grounds as taken in this writ petition and any other ground in the said appeal against the impugned memo and bill. The supply of electricity to the Paper Mill of the petitioner shall not be disconnected for non payment of the balance 75% of the compensation amount of Rs. 10,33,200/-. The 25% of the compensation amount deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted by the ASEB in accordance with the decision taken by the appellate authority. 10. The writ petition is disposed of on the terms and conditions as indicated above. However, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.