Judgment :- Writ petitioner is a consumer of power serviced for utilizing the electrical energy as an industry and provided connection as low tension-5 consumer. The petitioner had been so provided power connection as per sanction order dated 29.10.2001. 2. The initial capacity it appears had been enhanced to 5 kilowatt with effect from 27.2.2002. It appears the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the meter testing staff of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company which is now the power supplier, as on 20.1.2009 and it was noticed that the power supplied to the petitioner to be used as a LT-5 user was being misused for commercial purposes, in the sense, the power consumption was as LT-3 consumer in view of a telecom tower which had been installed in the subject premises and using the power for maintaining the telecom tower is to be treated as a commercial use. 3. On such premise, it appears the authorities had back billed the consumer with effect from 12.2.2002 the date on which it appears the petitioner had leased the premises to another person who in turn had erected the telecom tower on the premises. The back billing amount having been demanded for payment in terms of a demand notice dated 9.2.2009 [copy at Annexure-C] and with the warning that a sum of Rs.20,88,662/-if not paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice the power connection will be discontinued as the amount will be recovered in law the present writ petition is filed. 4. Petitioner has sought for quashing of this demand notice. 5. Emergent Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents are represented by Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned counsel. 6. I have heard Sri. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Submission of Sri. 4. Petitioner has sought for quashing of this demand notice. 5. Emergent Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents are represented by Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned counsel. 6. I have heard Sri. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Submission of Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents is that the demand raised on the petitioner is in terms of the provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act']; that the respondents were able to get information that power provided to the premises being misused for commercial purpose from 12.2.2002 onwards and therefore the difference in the rates and penalty with interest on the same have all been levied on the petitioner and the petitioner has been asked to pay the amount; that the petitioner is bound to make payment of the amount and therefore no interference is warranted. 8. However, Sri Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even in terms of section 126 of the Act, a demand of this nature cannot be raised straight away; that the Act provides for issuing a provisional order; that the consumer if accepts the same, may deposit the amount and void further consequences but the consumer is entitled to file objections to the provisional assessment before the assessing officer and if so filed the assessing officer has to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such persons and then to pass a final order; that the petitioner has not accepted the provisional assessment order and would have filed his objections but for the demand notice and the demand notice not indicating the option to the petitioner in terms of section 126(3) of the Act and therefore the impugned order is bad in law. 9. Section 126 of the Act as amended by Act No.26 of 2007 reads as under: "126. Assessment – [1] 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. [2] The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. [3] The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section [2], shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.' [4] Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. [5] If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. [6] The assessment under the section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the traffic applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section [5]. Explanation – For the purposes of this section – [a] 'assessing officer' means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government. [b] 'unauthorised use of electricity' means the usage of electricity – [i] by any artificial means; or [ii] by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or [iii] through a tampered meter; or [iv] for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or [v] for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised." 10. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the demand raised on the petitioner as it is found that the respondents have not followed the due procedure as contemplated under section 126[3] of the Act before calling upon the petitioner to raise demand of this nature. 11. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the demand raised on the petitioner as it is found that the respondents have not followed the due procedure as contemplated under section 126[3] of the Act before calling upon the petitioner to raise demand of this nature. 11. The petitioner being not only billed for as long a period as seven years but also made to pay penal rates of electricity charges, it is only proper that the petitioner is apprised of the same giving details and the reason for which the petitioner has to pay such penal rates and then call upon the petitioner to provide explanation if any he has to offer. 12. The provisional assessment order virtually serves as a show cause notice and until and unless the provisional assessment order contains all the details which by itself can sustain the order, even the provisional order will be bad in law. Unless such details are contained in the provisional assessment order there is no way of the consumer responding to it by way of objections. 13. When once an opportunity is accorded to the consumer to respond to the provisional assessment order, it is very necessary that the order should be one which gives all details about the manner of arriving at the demanded amount and not a cryptic or non-speaking order without reasons to which the consumer will not be able to respond. The requirement of providing opportunity to the consumer to offer his explanation and thereafter the authority to hear the petitioner, consider the objections and then to pass order cannot be an empty formality as unless a provisional order indicates the reasons and the circumstances under which the amount is demanded and arrived at, it will not be possible for the consumer to respond to the provisional demand. 14. The demand as under Annexure-C dated 9.2.2009 lacking in all particulars, it is inevitable to quash the demand but liberty reserved to the respondents to issue a fresh provisional order in accordance with section 126 of the Act and to provide opportunity to the petitioner to offer his explanation/objection, consider the same and then pass orders in accordance with law. 15. 15. The respondents having restored the power supply as per the directions of this court and on the petitioner having deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, the power supply can be retained and so also the deposit with the respondents subject to the final orders to be passed on the question in issue and determining the liability on the part of the petitioner in view of the so called misuse. 16. Though Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner may be directed to make a further deposit of Rs.5 lakhs to make it at least 50% of the demanded amount, certain objections are raised by Sri Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out that the manner in which the respondents have arrived at the amount for the billed period is not at all clear, particularly, the quantum of 2,15,276 units in respect of the entire period when the petitioner said to have been misused the power etc.,. 17. The details of such misuse in respect of this quantity of power not forthcoming in the demand and the order, it may not be necessary to direct the petitioner to make further deposits but the present deposit will be sufficient for the time being. 18. The impugned order dated 9.2.2009 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 19. Writ petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute.