JUDGMENT Seth, J. -- This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X has been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner, who having lost before the learned Single Judge is now assailing the validity of the amount of duty assessed and imposed for the unauthorized consumption of electricity. Appellant preferred W.P. No. 743/2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th March, 2003. Few facts relevant are as under: Appellant is running a marriage garden known as "Dastoor Marriage Garden" in Indore. The garden is let out on payment of rent for celebrating marriages or holding marriage receptions and organizing other social and cultural activities. It is a matter of common knowledge that these types of gardens are self-contained and provide all necessary amenities that are necessary for the success of functions. Undisputedly, appellant has obtained two electric connections from respondent to provide electricity to customers for the purposes of lighting, etc. in the garden. On 3.12.2001, a vigilance team of the respondent Board checked the appellant's premises. Checking led to discovery of connection for the purposes of lighting 5 Vapour lamps used for illuminating the parking area of the garden. The operating switch was found installed on a tree near the boundary wall of the garden, which was being operated by the management of the garden. The Vigilance team found that Vapour lamps were connected directly to III phase LT supply line of the Board. This III phase supply was not connected to the Indore Municipal Corporation's meter for the supply of electricity for the Streetlights and the consumption was not actually recorded in the Corporation Meter. On detection of illegal connection, a panchnama was prepared by the Board's officials and after affording opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant, provisional assessment for the unauthorised use of electricity was served upon the appellant demanding payment of Rs. 1,63,800/-. Appellant submitted objections to the demand raised against it. Sheet anchor of the objection was that the lamps in question where streetlights for which Corporation was liable to make the payment. In view of the stand taken by the appellant in the written objection, in spite of the fact that supply to Vapour lamps was not connected streetlight meter, still appellant was given a chance to obtain and furnish from Corporation an undertaking to the effect that payment in question would be made by the Corporation. In view of the stand taken by the appellant in the written objection, in spite of the fact that supply to Vapour lamps was not connected streetlight meter, still appellant was given a chance to obtain and furnish from Corporation an undertaking to the effect that payment in question would be made by the Corporation. Despite the opportunity, no such explicit undertaking was filed, therefore, rejecting objections. Competent Authority passed the final order, directing appellant to pay Rs.1,63,800/- within thirty days. This order along with panchnama was challenged before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, and on the material available on record came to conclusion that a very clever stratagem for pilferage was adopted by the appellant. Learned Single Judge on the basis of reply filed by the Board found that it was a clear case of theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of energy amounting to unauthorised use of electrical energy and after assigning valid and cogent reasons dismissed the writ petition. Apart from reiterating the contentions raised before the Learned Single Judge, Shri Bagadia, learned Senior Advocate submitted that Vapour lamps in question belonged to Municipal Corporation Indore, therefore to set at rest all controversy, Municipal Corporation Indore may be joined as party by amending the writ petition. For this purpose IA. No. 2389/03, IA. No. 2380/03, IA No. 2735/03 have been filed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we find no merit and substance either in the contention of Shri Bagadia or in the appeal. Undisputedly, on the day of inspection, the vigilance team found that five Vapour lamps were directly connected to the Board's III phase Lt Supply Line and the operating switch (MVC) was concealed in the tree in such a manner that it could be operated upon at will. It is also not disputed that the tree on which the operating switch was installed is very much within the parking area of the appellant's marriage garden. Obviously, the lamps were utilised for illuminating the parking area of the marriage garden and not for the purposes of streetlights. Otherwise, there was no reason why the appellant could not obtain and furnish the requisite undertaking from the Municipal Corporation as directed by the competent authority before passing the final order. Obviously, the lamps were utilised for illuminating the parking area of the marriage garden and not for the purposes of streetlights. Otherwise, there was no reason why the appellant could not obtain and furnish the requisite undertaking from the Municipal Corporation as directed by the competent authority before passing the final order. It is seen that the proceedings have been drawn in the presence of the representative of the appellant and the unauthorised connection to the Board's III Phase LT Line was detected. Prima facie conclusion of pilferage has been reached and the appellant was called upon to pay the amount assessed under the provisions of M.P. Urja Adhiniyam, 2001 for unauthorised use of electrical energy. A reading of the Adhiniyam clearly indicates that the Adhiniyam was passed to provide for prohibition of unauthorised use of electrical energy and assessment of cases of unauthorised use of electrical energy in the State and the respondent Board, when it detects that any consumer person had committed unauthorised use of electrical energy, may, without prejudice to its other rights, recover amount for such unauthorised use, the amount assessed under the Adhiniyam. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion we find no infirmity with order of learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid any substance is accordingly dismissed as also Interlocutory applications.