JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.P. Dube, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, M/s Hasan Steel and Alloys (Pvt.) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at All-darmiyan, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar through its Director, Sri Anwar Hasan, who is also impleaded as petitioner No. 2 in the present writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the bill dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) demanding minimum charge as well as provisional assessment notice dated 31.1.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). He has also sought a writ of mandamus declaring the notification dated 27.6.2006 issued by the State Government under Explanation (a) Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2003”) as illegal and utra vires and has further sought a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to restore electric supply of the petitioners and not to make final order of assessment. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners entered into an agreement for supply of electric energy of 5200 KVA load with Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “PVVNL”) through its Executive Engineer in the year 2005. The electricity connection was released by installing a 33 KV independent feeder emanating from 220 KV Sub-station, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar to supply electricity to the petitioners at high tension (in short “H.T.”) namely 33-K V. A checking was made at the petitioners’ premises on 29.1.2008 by a checking team consisting of eight officials of PVVNL who found petitioners indulging in theft of electrical energy in various ways recorded in the checking report, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Copy of the checking report alongwith provisional assessment notice dated 31.1.2008 was issued to petitioners proposing an assessment of Rs. 1,53,97,943/- directing petitioners to submit their objection, if any, by 15.2.2008. The petitioners submitted their objections on 13.2.2008 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and also submitted a supplementary objections on 10.3.2008. Copy of the checking report alongwith provisional assessment notice dated 31.1.2008 was issued to petitioners proposing an assessment of Rs. 1,53,97,943/- directing petitioners to submit their objection, if any, by 15.2.2008. The petitioners submitted their objections on 13.2.2008 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and also submitted a supplementary objections on 10.3.2008. It is however said that nothing further has proceeded and on the contrary the assessing officer namely, Executive Engineer, PVVNL has sent a letter dated 18.2.2008 to the Managing Director, PVVNL, Victoria Park seeking his directions with respect to the manner in which final assessment has to be made. He also issued a bill dated nil (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) for the month of February, 2008 requiring petitioners to pay minimum charge of Rs. 22,10,000/- besides some other charges demanding a total sum of Rs. 1,49,75,429/- from the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended : (a) The Executive Engineer, PVVNL cannot be an ‘assessing officer’ under Explanation (a) of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 since PVVNL is neither a licensee under the said Act nor has been granted such licence either under U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 or Act, 2003 and, therefore, the Executive Engineer of PVVNL cannot be an assessing officer for making assessment under Section 126. Accordingly, the State Government’s order notifying Executive Engineer, PVVNL as assessing officer, is ultra vires of the Act and hence the provisional assessment order issued by the said assessing officer is also illegal and without jurisdiction. (b) In any case since the Executive Engineer a statutory authority has to make assessment under Section 126 of the Act, 2003, it is impermissible on his part to seek instructions and guidance from Managing Director, PVVNL for making final assessment. He has to apply his mind independently, without being influenced by any superior authority who has no role to play in the matter of assessment. The assessing officer, therefore, is acting illegally by not passing final order of assessment on its own and instead seeking direction from the Managing Director, PVVNL and the said procedure adopted by the said respondent is wholly illegal. (c) The electric supply of petitioners was disconnected on 29.1.2008 and no final assessment has been made till date despite the fact that the petitioner has submitted reply on the provisional assessment order. (c) The electric supply of petitioners was disconnected on 29.1.2008 and no final assessment has been made till date despite the fact that the petitioner has submitted reply on the provisional assessment order. Therefore, no demand of any charges for the period electric supply has remain disconnected can be raised from the petitioners even on minimum charge basis and, therefore, the bill (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) is illegal. (d) The provisional assessment has not been made correctly by the assessing officer and, therefore, the provisional assessment order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have said that PVVNL is a Government company and, therefore, the State Government has rightly issued order under Section 126, Explanation (a) of the Act, 2003 notifying Executive Engineers of PVVNL as assessing officers. It has further said that since there are some technical aspects on which the Executive Engineer has requested guidelines from the Managing Director, PVVNL and, therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the assessing officer is illegal. Sri Dube submits that since the matter is still under consideration and has not been finalised, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the present matter at this stage and permit Executive Engineer to make the assessment final expeditiously and within such time as this Court may feel appropriate. 6. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record and also the written statements filed on behalf of respondents. 7. The question as to whether the Government notification dated 27.6.2006 is valid or not has already been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 21073 of 2008, Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided by judgment of date and we have held therein as under : “We are clearly of the view that notification dated 27.6.2006 is neither illegal nor ultra vires of Explanation (a) of Section 126 of the Act, 2003. We thus hold that the State Government has validly notified the officers of PVVNL which is a ‘Government company’ under Section 617 read with Section 4(1) of 1956 Act, as ‘assessing officer’ and, therefore, the assessment orders issued by the said authorities cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction on this ground.” 8. We thus hold that the State Government has validly notified the officers of PVVNL which is a ‘Government company’ under Section 617 read with Section 4(1) of 1956 Act, as ‘assessing officer’ and, therefore, the assessment orders issued by the said authorities cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction on this ground.” 8. In view of the above judgment of this Court on the aforesaid issue and for the reasons contained in the said judgment, we hereby reject contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners and uphold Government notification dated 27.6.2006 and declare that it is neither illegal nor ultra vires of Explanation (a) of Section 126 of the Act, 2003. 9. The next submission is whether it is open to the assessing officer to seek instructions and guidance from higher authority for making final assessment. In our view, the contention of petitioners deserve to be sustained. Under Section 126 of Act, 2003 the assessing officer has to pass an assessment order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the person concerned against whom assessment is to be made. Such assessment order is appealable under Section 127 of the Act, 2003. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) in para 6.8 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 2005”) which has been published by Commission in exercise of his powers under Section 50 of the Act, 2003 a detailed procedure in the light of Section 126 of Act, 2003 has been laid down. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions which we have already discussed in detail in Ashok Kumar (supra), in our view, it is undoubtedly a statutory and quasi judicial power to be exercised by the assessing officer. It cannot be controlled or dictated by anyone including a superior or higher authority. When law requires something to be done in a particular manner, anything done otherwise is illegal and impermissible in law. The assessing officer has to exercise his independent power of assessment in accordance with the procedure and provision of the Act, 2003 and Code, 2005. He cannot seek guidance and instructions from the higher authorities and cannot function under the dictates of such higher authority. That would amount to abdicating the statutory power in favour of authority who has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. He cannot seek guidance and instructions from the higher authorities and cannot function under the dictates of such higher authority. That would amount to abdicating the statutory power in favour of authority who has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the assessing officer has erred in law by requesting Managing Director, PVVNL to issue necessary guidance for making final assessment in the matter. Any authority of PVVNL, other than assessing officer, is incompetent to issue any direction or guideline to the assessing officer in respect to the manner of assessment of a particular consumer. 10. So far as the bill raised to the petitioners for the period electricity supply has remain disconnected demanding minimum charges, it is well settled that till the electric connection of a consumer is permanently disconnected, he continued to be a consumer of the supplier of electricity and, therefore, is liable to pay charges, if any, during the period of disconnection which has occurred on account of some act or omission on the part of the consumer as per the agreement and tariff applicable. Here the electric supply of petitioners has been disconnected on the allegations of theft of energy and, therefore, prima facie reason for disconnection is attributable to the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that electric connection of petitioners has been disconnected permanently. Therefore, they are liable to pay minimum charges to PVVNL and the bill raised on the basis of minimum charges cannot be said to be illegal or beyond jurisdiction. However, the aforesaid demand and payment, if any, by the petitioners would be subject to the ultimate conclusion of the proceedings wherein if the petitioners are ultimately found guilty, the demand would stand final but if it is found that disconnection was made by the supplier without any valid reason and the allegation of theft was incorrect, the demand of minimum charges for the said period may not be valid. However, we are not expressing any final opinion on this issue at this stage but leave it open to the petitioners to raise a dispute with respect to the aforesaid demand subsequently before the appropriate forum if ultimately it is found that the disconnection was not made for any valid reason. 11. The procedure for making assessment has been described in detail in para 6.8 of the Code, 2005. 11. The procedure for making assessment has been described in detail in para 6.8 of the Code, 2005. We have also discussed this aspect in our judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra). In the present case, however, we find that the inspection report itself is self speaking and gives full details as to the manner in which the ‘assessing officer’ find petitioners guilty of theft of electrical energy. The copy of the said checking report has been sent to the petitioners on 31.1.2008 on which date the provisional assessment order has also been issued. It is not the case of petitioners that they have not been able to understand the reason of assessment or the manner thereof. They have already submitted their detail reply vide their objection dated 13.2.2008 and supplementary objection dated 10.3.2008. We, therefore, are not inclined to hold provisional assessment order bad or illegal, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate that subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition be disposed of finally with a direction to the assessing officer to pass a final order of assessment after hearing petitioners as per the procedure contemplated in para 6.8 of Supply Code 2005 and by applying his own mind, independently, and expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him, since the electric connection of petitioners is lying disconnected since 29.1.2008 and it is not proper that the matter should remain pending for long. In such a matter, the proceedings should come to an end expeditiously. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ————