JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J. (Oral)-This writ petition assails the validity of an order dated 24th-25th September, 2007 passed by the respondent demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,02,21,824/- towards penalty for the alleged theft of electricity committed by the latter. When this petition came up for admission on 30th January, 2008 it was argued by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent had while raising the demand in question placed reliance on five different pieces of evidence without disclosing the said evidence to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of being heard in matter or leading evidence in rebuttal. Mr. Gupta had enumerated the evidence relied upon by the respondent as under: (1) Lab report dated 22.2.2007, (2) Meter data, (3) Photographs, (4) Video recording of the inspection proceedings, (5) Alleged inspection report dated 16.12.2006. Mr. Nandrajog, Counsel appearing for the respondent had fairly stated that without going into the merits of the contentions whether the material was provided and whether the petitioner had an opportunity of being heard, the respondent could with a view to cutting short the controversy and resultant delay furnish the material mentioned above to the petitioner and re-hear the entire matter within a timeframe. He was accordingly given time to secure the relevant material and to furnish the same to Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Nandrajog has pursuant to the said order handed over a compilation of 26 pages comprising the Lab report dated 22.2.2007, meter data, video recording and the inspection report dated 16.12.2006 in the Court today. He submits that no photographs have been taken and the question of furnishing copies of the same does not therefore arise. He further submits that the meter data made available to learned Counsel for the petitioner is the only data available with the respondent and that there is no other electronic down loaded data from the meter which the respondent may make use of other than whatever has already been supplied a reference to which has also been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. A copy of the compilation of the above documents has been filed by Mr. Nandrajog even before us. 2. Mr. A copy of the compilation of the above documents has been filed by Mr. Nandrajog even before us. 2. Mr. Gupta Counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from setting aside the demand raised by the respondent, the petitioner has also prayed for resumption of supply of the electricity to it. He submits that since the payment raised by the respondent is being quashed, the respondent could be directed to resume the-supply of energy by payment of current electricity charges. Mr. Nandrajog does not oppose that prayer. In the circumstances, therefore, we allow this petition, quash the impugned bill dated 24-25.9.2007 and remit the matter hack to the competent authority, namely, Mr. Rajesh Doshi. Additional Manager (Enforcement-II) of the respondent company for a fresh hearing and disposal of the case after affording to the petitioner an opportunity for being heard and leading any evidence in rebuttal. We further direct that subject to the petitioner paying all current charges for the energy consumed and fulfilling other formalities stipulated for the purpose, the supply of energy shall be resumed. Petitioner to appear before the competent authority for further directions on 3rd March, 2008 at 3 oclock. 3. All other contentions urged by the parties are left open. The disposal of the matter shall be expedited but not later than six months from the date the petitioner appears before the competent authority. Result : Ordered accordingly.