G. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. On an average electricity consumed by the petitioner is below 200 units per month. She received a bill dated 29th September,2003 from the office of the Loss Control Cell of the CESC Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 19,667/ -. Challenging the aforesaid bill she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. Her writ petition was registered as W. P. No. 17001 (W) of 2003. An order dated 8th October. 2003 was passed restraining the CESC Ltd. from disconnecting supply of electricity until disposal of the writ application, in the event a sum of Rs. 12,500/- was deposited by the writ petitioner. The aforesaid sum was duly deposited by the writ petitioner on 17th October, 2003. The said writ petition is still pending. On 7th january, 2006 supply of electricity was disconnected for alleged pilferage. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the CESC Ltd. and the documents annexed thereto include a copy of disconnection notice dated 7th January, 2006 alleged to have been affixed at a conspicuous place of the premises occupied by the writ petitioner because the writ petitioner allegedly refused to accept the same. The ground for disconnection notice is as follows: "body seal of the meter found tampered. " ( 2 ) A copy of FIR. claimed to have been lodged with the police on 7th march, 2006, contains the following material allegation. "during our checking we have observed that the meter holders by way of tampering the meter body seals and interfering with the internal mechanism of the meters have reduced the original registration of the meters. The electricity that was being stolen in the aforesaid process was distributed to the adjoining premises for monetary gain. The stolen electricity was used for domestic purpose. In the aforesaid process of electricity theft they have been stealing electricity in the tune of 2000 units per month per meter (approx)which translate into an amount or Rs. 10,000/- (approx) per month per meter. " ( 3 ) THE aforesaid FIR is however directed against three several consumers. The petitioner is one of them. Allegations are common in respect of each of the three consumers. On 7th March, 2006 a provisional assessment appears to have been sent to the writ petitioner for an aggregate sum of Rs. 94,707/- which includes a sum of Rs. 58. The petitioner is one of them. Allegations are common in respect of each of the three consumers. On 7th March, 2006 a provisional assessment appears to have been sent to the writ petitioner for an aggregate sum of Rs. 94,707/- which includes a sum of Rs. 58. 692/- on account of pilferage of electricity: a sum of Rs. 34,985/- on account of additional security deposit; a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of meter replacement charge; and a sum of Rs. 30/- on account of reconnection. charge. The grounds assigned in the order of provisional assessment are as follows: "seal on meter body found tampered Metering arrangement tampered". ( 4 ) THE petitioner wrote a letter dated 10th January, 2006 taking exception to disconnection of the supply of electricity in violation of the order dated 8th October, 2003 passed by this Court in the pending writ petition. The letter dated 10th January. 2006 appears to have been addressed by the writ petitioner before receiving the provisional bill of assessment because there is no reference in it to the same. ( 5 ) THE present writ petition was filed on 28th January, 2006. On 6th february, 2006 the matter was taken up by Soumitra Sen, J. when it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CESC ltd that, a final assessment had already been made. In that view of the matter the CESC Ltd. was directed to serve a copy of the final assessment upon the writ petitioner. Correspondingly the writ petitioner was granted liberty to file a supplementary affidavit. Originally the writ petition was filed challenging the provisional assessment. Pursuant to the leave granted, a supplementary affidavit was filed challenging the final assessment made at a sum of Rs. 4,83;080/ -. The matter was taken up for final hearing on 7th April, 2006. ( 6 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the CESC ltd. has abused the statutory power for no justifiable reason whatsoever. The alleged pilferage, it was submitted, is a myth. The learned counsel added that by abusing its power the CESC Ltd. was engaged in extorting money from the helpless consumers who have no choice but to succumb to the pressure because there is no alternative supplier of electricity. has abused the statutory power for no justifiable reason whatsoever. The alleged pilferage, it was submitted, is a myth. The learned counsel added that by abusing its power the CESC Ltd. was engaged in extorting money from the helpless consumers who have no choice but to succumb to the pressure because there is no alternative supplier of electricity. It was submitted that the respondents had become so emboldened that they did not hesitate to violate an order of Court. The disconnection was indeed made in violation of the order dated 8th October, 2003 passed in W. P. No. 1700 (W) of 2003 which is still pending. The respondents are alleged to have violated articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india. They have manufactured documents to prop up a fraudulent case. The provisional assessment was made on an imaginary ground. The so-called opportunity of hearing given to the writ petitioner without furnishing copies of the record relied upon by the assessing officer is against all norms of the principles of natural justice. The criminal case started against the writ petitioner was wholly unmeritorious. The fact that the respondents have grossly abused the statutory power would also be evident from the inherent congruilies in the case run by the respondents. The final assessment is illegal on the face of it. The statutory authorities, appointed for the purpose of making the provisional and the final assessment, are the officers of the CESC Ltd. itself. They have no regard for the principles of fairness and justice. They have devoted themselves to assisting the CESC Ltd. in extorting money from the poor and helpless consumers. It was therefore submitted that both the provisional assessment and final assessment should be set aside and the CESC Ltd. should be directed to restore supply of electricity forthwith. ( 7 ) MR. Bose. learned senior advocate, appearing for the CESC Ltd. submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Relying on a division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of W. B. S. E. B and Ors. v. Anup Mondial and Ors. , reported in 2006 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 12 he submitted that the writ petitioner should seek his remedy before the Appellate Authority provided under the statute. He also relied on a judgment in the case of U. P. Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U. P. Rajya setu Nigam. v. Anup Mondial and Ors. , reported in 2006 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 12 he submitted that the writ petitioner should seek his remedy before the Appellate Authority provided under the statute. He also relied on a judgment in the case of U. P. Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U. P. Rajya setu Nigam. reported in 2004 (4) SCC 268 paras. 11 and 12 for the proposition that when the rights and obligations have been created under an Act the only remedy available is under the provisions of the act itself. ( 8 ) HE also relied upon a Judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel and construction Works Ltd and Ors. v. Hindustan Steel and Construction Workers employess Union, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 725 para 8 for the self-same proposition. ( 9 ) ON merits Mr. Bose conceded that the final assessment under challenge in the writ petition was not made in accordance with law inasmuch as the authority has taken into consideration the alleged pilferage for a period of about three years whereas law permits a period of three months only. He however disputed that the CESC Ltd. was engaged in extorting money from the consumers or that the case of pilferage is not based on truth or that there are incongruities in the case of the respondents or that the officers endowed wilh the statutory power of making provisional or final assessment or any of them has been towing the line of CESC Ltd. He disputed that there has been any violation of the order of the Court. He also disputed that there has been any violation of the norms of the principles of natural justice. He disputed that any of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioner has been violated. He invited this Court to dismiss the writ petition and to leave the writ petitioner to seek her remedy before the appellate authority. ( 10 ) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates. Only the following questions, to my mind, can be dealt with in the writ petition. a) Is the writ petition maintainable? b) Did the CESC Ltd. violate the order of injunction in disconnecting the supply of electricity? ( 10 ) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates. Only the following questions, to my mind, can be dealt with in the writ petition. a) Is the writ petition maintainable? b) Did the CESC Ltd. violate the order of injunction in disconnecting the supply of electricity? c) Did the assessing officers violate the provisions of Electricity act, 2003 or the principles of natural justice or the norms of fair play and justice in making the provisional assessment under challenge? Is the provisional assessment not backed by evidence? d) Is an interference called for? ( 11 ) REST of the allegations cannot be taken cognizance of at this stage. ( 12 ) I shall now deal with the issues in the order formulated above. U) Is the writ petition maintainable? it is no doubt true that there is provision in the aforesaid Act of 2003 for an appeal against the final assessment. But the question which falls for decision is whether the alternative remedy provided under the statute shall constitute a bar insofar as this writ petition is concerned. I already have noticed the submissions made by the learned Advocates. The petitioner's case is that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, fundamental rights, norms of justice and fair play and an express order of Court prohibiting the respondents from disconnecting supply of electricity. The question of maintainability has to be decided in that background. ( 13 ) THE Division Bench Judgment relied upon by Mr. Bose does not really assist him because the issues listed above were not raised before the Division Bench. The Judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by mr. Bose equally lend no assistance to him. What had happened in the case of U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. was that the service of the industrial workers was terminated on the ground of abandonment of service. The High Court held that the workers were on a strike. There was admittedly no notice of strike contemplated under the Industrial disputes Act. Naturally disputed questions of fact had arisen as to whether there had in fact been abandonment of service, and, whether the strike was illegal. The High Court held that the workers were on a strike. There was admittedly no notice of strike contemplated under the Industrial disputes Act. Naturally disputed questions of fact had arisen as to whether there had in fact been abandonment of service, and, whether the strike was illegal. The Apex Court in that view of the matter held that the writ petition should not have been entertained because the rights and obligations which were sought to be enforced emanated from a particular statute which had contemplated an inbuilt machinery for enforcement thereof. ( 14 ) THE subsequent Judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel and construction Works Ltd. relied upon by Mr. Bose followed the earlier judgment in the case of U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. in an identical set of facts and circumstances. ( 15 ) THE Judgment which really would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case is one in the case Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in 1998 (vol. 8) SCC 1. In paragraph 15 of the aforesaid report the following statement of law was made by the Apex Court. "but the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. " ( 16 ) THE complaint with regard to illegal exercise of power, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of the norms of fair play and justice, violation of fundamental rights urged by the writ petitioner is not without merit which I shall discuss while answering the other issues. Moreover the challenge to the maintainability loses all significance when it is conceded that the final assessment also under challenge is illegal. I, therefore, answer the first issue in the affirmative. (b) Did the CESC Ltd. violate the order of injunction in disconnecting the supply of electricity? Moreover the challenge to the maintainability loses all significance when it is conceded that the final assessment also under challenge is illegal. I, therefore, answer the first issue in the affirmative. (b) Did the CESC Ltd. violate the order of injunction in disconnecting the supply of electricity? ( 17 ) THE order dated 8th October, 2003 provides as follows:"there will be an unconditional order of injunction restraining cesc authorities from disconnecting electric supply in the premises of the petitioner for non-payment of the bill dated September 29, 2003, till October 15. 2003. . The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,500/- by October 15. 2003, without prejudice to her rights and contentions involved in this application. In the event of deposit of the said sum of Rs. 12,500/- by the petitioner, the CESC authorities will not disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner till the disposal of the writ application. " ( 18 ) IT is not in dispute that the writ petition is still pending. Therefore the order is continuing. The supply was disconnected in spite of the order. Even assuming that the disconnection was necessitated by a subsequent cause of action, propriety demanded a permission from the Court before resorting to do what the Court had prohibited. (c) "did the assessing officers violate the provisions of Electricity act, 2003 or the principles of natural justice or the norms of fair play and justice in making the provisional assessment under challenge? Is the provisional assessment not backed by evidence?" ( 19 ) SUB-SECTION 1 of section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 provides as follows:"if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his Judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. " ( 20 ) TWO obligations cast upon the assessing officers are clearly discernible (i) the assessing officer has to come to the conclusion On the basis of evidence that the person concerned has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity, (ii) after arriving at the aforesaid conclusion he is supposed to provisionally assess on the basis of evidence, to the best of his Judgment, the electricity charges payable by such person. ( 21 ) I have laid stress on evidence because "unauthorised use of electricity" cannot be said to have taken place unless "on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments. . . . . . . . . or after inspection of records maintained" the assessing officer comes to the aforesaid conclusion. Let us now apply the test to the case in hand not for the purpose of ascertaining whether the alleged pilferage is true but for the purpose of examining whether the provisional assessment discloses any evidence to have been taken into consideration. ( 22 ) I already have noticed the FIR lodged on 7th January, 2006 by the CESC Ltd. with the Shibpur Police Station. The case to be found in the FIR, inter alia, is "the electricity that was being stolen in the aforesaid process was distributed to the adjoining premises for monetary gain". This case is not there either in the notice of disconnection which is appearing at page 21 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the CESC ltd. nor is this case to be found in the provisional assessment made on the self-same date i. e. , 7th January, 2006. ( 23 ) THE reason to be found for disconnection in the disconnection notice is as follows : "body seal of the meter found tampered. " ( 24 ) WHEREAS the reasons to be found in the provisional assessment also made on the self-same date i. e. . 7th January, 2006 are as follows: "seal on meter body foun tampered Metering arrangement tampered". ( 25 ) THERE is thus absolute uncertainty as regards the lapses if any found upon inspection of the premises. The documents prepared by the cesc Ltd. on 7th January, 2006 are not uniform as regards the reason for holding that there has been any pilferage or an unauthorised use of electricity. ( 25 ) THERE is thus absolute uncertainty as regards the lapses if any found upon inspection of the premises. The documents prepared by the cesc Ltd. on 7th January, 2006 are not uniform as regards the reason for holding that there has been any pilferage or an unauthorised use of electricity. The assessing officer has not made any attempt whatsoever to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable factors. ( 26 ) THE asssessing officer in his order dated 7th January, 2006 while making the provisional assessment has made the following findings:"perusing the records available with me in regard to the aforesaid supply, I have come to the conclusion that you were indulging in unauthorised use of electricity. " ( 27 ) HE has called upon the consumer to file her objection within ten days from the date of the provisional assessment. But the records on the basis whereof he arrived at the conclusion that the consumer was indulging in unauthorised use of electricity were neither identified nor annexed to the provisional assessment. Yet the consumer has been directed to file her objection within ten days from the date of provisional assessment. Is this fair? Does this conform the principles of natural justice? Does this show bona fide exercise of power? Does this show an impartial discharge of office? ( 28 ) WITHOUT disclosing the records relied upon by the assessing officer he has issued the following direction:"please submit all documents and records and materials for my consideration as you may like to rely upon before my passing the final Order of Assessment, which will be made strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the regulations framed thereunder. " ( 29 ) I wonder what document or record or material is the domestic consumer supposed to submit without knowing the basis for arriving at the conclusion about unauthorised use of electricity and the provisional assessment. The so-called reasons appearing in the notice of disconnection and the provisional assessment are inferential allegations. When the allegations is that seal has been tampered, it is obviously based on some other facts which led the accuser to conclude such tampering. Similarly when it is alleged that the metering arrangement has been tampered, there are bound to be primary facts on the basis of which the inference was drawn. When the allegations is that seal has been tampered, it is obviously based on some other facts which led the accuser to conclude such tampering. Similarly when it is alleged that the metering arrangement has been tampered, there are bound to be primary facts on the basis of which the inference was drawn. Those pnmary facts and evidence in support thereof are no where to be found in the provisional assessment. ( 30 ) IT is not for the consumer to show that he did not indulge in an unfair practice. She has been called upon, at it were, to prove the negative. Is this not an arbitrary procedure adopted by the assessing officer? ( 31 ) TOWARDS the end of the provisional assessment there is an indication that photographs have been taken. Even those photographs were not made available to the writ petitioner nor have those photographs been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition. Am I to believe or is it possible to still proceed on the basis that the assessing officer reached the conclusion about unauthorised user of electricity bona fide? - My answer obviously is 'no'. ( 32 ) WITH regard to the quantum fixed in the provisional assessment the assessing officer has not disclosed any evidence which he took into consideration. The statute provides for best Judgment. What is a best judgment and what is for that matter a good Judgment? A good judgment according to me is that which gives every person what is due to him. The law has provided for the best Judgment. Therefore the expectation of law is even higher. The FIR disclosed by CESC Ltd. , in its affidavit-in-opposition which I already have noticed above goes to show that an alleged loss of Rs. 10,000/- per month was caused to the cesc Ltd. If that is the case of the CESC Ltd. how could the assessing officer make the assessment for a period of three months at a sum of rs. 94,707/- which is three times as much of the alleged loss allegedly suffered by the CESC Ltd. for the alleged pilferage. Is this a bona fide exercise of power? - again my answer is 'no'. ( 33 ) THE infirmities found in the provisional assessment were far surpassed in the final assessment. When the provisional assessment is for a sum of Rs. Is this a bona fide exercise of power? - again my answer is 'no'. ( 33 ) THE infirmities found in the provisional assessment were far surpassed in the final assessment. When the provisional assessment is for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- and odd the final assessment is for more than Rs. 4,00,000/ -. I don't have to dwell upon its illegality in great detail because Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate has already conceded that the final assessment is illegal. ( 34 ) I, therefore, am constrained to observe that the officers entrusted with the statutory power have not conducted themselves impartially. They have left much to be desired. The issue is thus answered in the affirmative. (d) Is an interference called for? ( 35 ) FOR the reasons indicated above I answer the issue in the affirmative. ( 36 ) FOR the reasons indicated above both the final bill and provisional bill are set aside. The CESC Ltd. is directed to forthwith restore supply of electricity. It will however be open to the assessing officer if he thinks fit to make a further provisional assessment in accordance with law. The CESC Ltd. shall also bear the costs of the writ petition assessed at 300 G. Ms. Writ application is accordingly disposed of.