ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. This writ petition is by a consumer of power who had been provided electricity connection by the respondents for irrigation purpose. 2. It appears the authorities on information and being of the view that the consumer was mis-utilising the power by drawing water and selling it for a price i.e., using the power for trading or business purpose, as water was being sold on commercial lines, back billed the subscriber demanding charges payable commensurate to power provided to subscribers for commercial operations. A demand was raised in terms of demand note dated 20.4.2000 (Annexure-B) calling upon the petitioner to remit the charge of Rs. 1,04,433/- 3. The demand notice also provided option to the subscriber to file objections, if any, within a period of ten days. Though it had been characterised as an appeal it appears there was some confusion as to the meaning of such demand notice particularly, as to whether it could be treated as show-cause notice of a final order against which an appeal lies. However the subscriber, it appears had preferred an appeal by remitting a sum of Rs. 36,018/- in terms of receipt dated 31.12.2002 purporting to be 25% of the amount demanded. It appears the appeal was neither examined nor the subscriber was put on notice, but in terms of an communication dated 22.4.2008 as per Annexure-A, the subscriber/writ petitioner has been intimated that the appeal having been filed beyond the permitted time, it is being returned and also called upon the petitioner to remit the balance amount within a period of 7 days form the date of receipt to the same. 5. It is aggrieved by the fresh demand, the present writ petition is filed 6. Sri. Prasanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the demand of this nature for the difference of the amount was disputed ever since 2000 could not have been raised even without offering an opportunity to the petitioner to make good his case without hearing him etc. 7. Though the matter has come up for preliminary hearing Sri. Sri. Prasanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the demand of this nature for the difference of the amount was disputed ever since 2000 could not have been raised even without offering an opportunity to the petitioner to make good his case without hearing him etc. 7. Though the matter has come up for preliminary hearing Sri. Gupta, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent takes notice in the matter and submits that the officers of the Corporation were not very clear about the procedure to be followed in a such matters, but it is now settled that before raising a demand of this nature, the Assessing Officer himself should receive the objection if any and pass an order to determine the liability and thereupon if the assessee is still aggrieved, he has the option to file an appeal. He submits that as of now in view of the provisions under Section 126 a procedure is contemplated under Section 127 which can be followed and Section 12 provides for an appeal to be preferred by the subscriber if the subscriber is not satisfied with the order passed by the assessing authority. 8. Learned Counsel for the Corporation very fairly submits that in this view of the statutory position demand at annexure-A be quashed and direction to the assessing authority to examine the objection of the petitioner-assessee and to pass an order on that to determine the liability of the petitioner on the allegation as made under Annexure-B, may be issued. 9. Submission of the learned Counsel for the corporation is very proper in the light of the existing statutory provisions. 10. Though the matter has come for preliminary hearing as the standing Counsel for the Corporation has taken and has made submissions on behalf of the respondents and the matter is finally heard Rule is issued and made absolute. Impugned demand at Annexure-A is quashed. The assessing authority is not made a party. The first respondent Corporation is directed to ensure that the assessing authority examines the objections of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. For such purpose, the petitioner or his representative shall appear before the Assessing Authority on 18.6.2008 without awaiting for any further notice from the assessing authority. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Rule is made absolute. 11. Sri. For such purpose, the petitioner or his representative shall appear before the Assessing Authority on 18.6.2008 without awaiting for any further notice from the assessing authority. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Rule is made absolute. 11. Sri. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Corporation is permitted file his vakalath within two weeks from today.