JUDGMENT I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. The facts of the above two writ applications are identical. As common questions of facts and law arise, both are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Each of these writs challenges a final order of assessment dated 28th March, 2008 passed by the Assessing Officers, Group VII. By this assessment order the assessment of unauthorised use of electricity made by the writ petitioners has been assessed Rs. 15,60,984/- in W.P. No. 678 of 2008 and Rs. 7,70,327/- in W.P. No. 969 of 2008. 3. By virtue of an interim order passed in an earlier writ challenging disconnection, the electricity supply which was cut off during inspection has been restored without any deposit or condition in W.P. No. 678 of 2008. 4. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 678 of 2008 is a registered partnership firm. It runs a restaurant. On 5th February, 2008, the electricity connection to the restaurant was cut off on the allegation of theft/unauthorised use of electricity after a visit by the inspection team of the respondent licensee. On the same day a First Information Report was lodged with the police. A writ application was filed being W.P. No. 11583(W) of 2006 challenging disconnection where an interim order has been passed ordering reconnection without any deposit or condition. That writ application is still pending. Similar disconnection was made in the other writ. 5. Here, the assessment orders have been challenged mainly on the ground of absence of reasons and perversity. 6. The application has been opposed on the ground that the writ petitioner firm ought to be relegated to the appellate authority, which is an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy. Secondly, even if, some principles of natural justice have been breached, that is, inter alia by an unreasoned assessment order, the petitioner firm would have the full opportunity of seeking rectification of this defect at the appellate stage by urging all grounds available to them. I have been taken through the order of assessment in detail by both the parties. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I have been taken through the order of assessment in detail by both the parties. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pratap Chatterjee shows me the first recital in the final order of assessment which reads thus:- "During an inspection on 05.02.2008, upon detection of theft of electricity, the supply at the aforesaid premises was disconnected by a team from CESC Limited led by an Engineer duly authorized to act under section 135 of the Electricity Act; 2003 amended up-to-date." 8. Thereafter, he takes me to the First Information Report lodged with the police on 5th February, 2008, appended to W.P. No. 678 of 2008 which is the day of inspection and disconnection where it is stated that the premises was visited by the inspection team and upon inspection the meter was found to be tampered and electric connection cut off. Then he showed me the letter dated 8th February, 2008 by the respondent assessee where according to him for the first time the point of non-availability of access to the common meter board was raised. It was also stated in that letter that the supply had to be disconnected from outside the premises. But then, in that letter also, there was no mention of any resistance by the writ petitioner consumer to disconnection. He submits that in view of the above inconsistencies the following finding made at internal page 4 of the assessment order was not warranted:- "It has been mentioned in the written objection that CESC Limited did not pay any visit to their premises on 05.02.2008, I do not understand what the consumer is trying to establish. The authorized engineers of CESC Limited had visited the premises on 05.02.2008, inspected the meters but could not disconnect the meters owing to stiff resistance offered by the persons present thereat. Having no other alternative they had to disconnect the supplies to the aforesaid meters from the pillar box situated outside the premises." 9. That according to him is an example of non-application of a closed mind. He further submits that the ultimate conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are entirely without reasons. 10. Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent however tried to the best of his ability to uphold the assessment order. That according to him is an example of non-application of a closed mind. He further submits that the ultimate conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are entirely without reasons. 10. Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent however tried to the best of his ability to uphold the assessment order. He first makes the submission that the recitals in the assessment order show the evidence which the Assessing Officer was considering for example at internal page 2 of the order he has said that the connected load was 30KW and at internal page 3 he has relied on admission of N.K. Malhotra that during restoration the load was 24 KW. Further he submitted that in the objection filed to the provisional assessment the unauthorised use was admitted and there was no real challenge to the unauthorised assessment. 11. The first submission is that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. There has been an opportunity of filing written objection, oral hearing was given and in the recitals in the assessment order, the case of the respondent licensee has been adequately discussed, evidence has also been relied upon in the recitals. The ultimate conclusions can be justified on account of the above records. It is said that section 126(6)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 permits an Assessing Officer to proceed on the basis of the records only which the Assessing Officer has done. Hence, the order is good and the remedy for challenging it is the appellate forum. 12. Alternatively even if it is held that the order is without reasons, there is an opportunity to the writ petitioner firm to redress his grievance in appeal. Thus no real prejudice has been caused to him. It would be very convenient to refer to the cases of Mr. Banerjee when the authorities are discussed later on in this order. 13. First is the question of alternative remedy. 14. The appeal from an assessment order is before an appellate authority constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. Nobody can doubt these well established principles that when there is an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy, the Writ Court should not take the task of deciding the matter in dispute, as an Appellate or Revision Court have been but relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy. The cases cited by Mr. Banerjee, namely, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Nobody can doubt these well established principles that when there is an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy, the Writ Court should not take the task of deciding the matter in dispute, as an Appellate or Revision Court have been but relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy. The cases cited by Mr. Banerjee, namely, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Limited, AIR 1985 SC 330 , are very good authorities for the above principle. 15. But at the same time there are circumstances when the Writ Court will entertain a writ application, despite existence of the alternative remedy. Four circumstances in which the Writ Court can so intervene have been stated in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1998(8) SCC 1 , in paras 14 and 15. Those circumstances are:- 1. The infraction of fundamental right. 2. Violation of the rules of natural justice. 3. When the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 4. When the vires of a statute is challenged. 16. Mr. Banerjee's other case Panchkari Haldar vs. Purna Chandra Haldar, 1984 (2) CLJ 89, is also on the same point. 17. After taking me in detail though the written objection Mr. Banerjee argues that the entire case of the respondent licensee was known by the writ petitioner/consumer which they have dealt with in the written objection. They have been given a full hearing before the Assessment Officer. He has referred me to the portion of the assessment order referring to the connected load and the load at the time of disconnection, certain recitals about disconnection and what the inspection team has found at the time of disconnection to justify the ultimate findings that have been made in the assessment order regarding theft of electricity, resulting in an assessment of Rs. 15,60,984/-. 18. I am very troubled by the following findings of the Assessing Officer. "It has been mentioned in the written objection that CESC Limited did not pay any visit to their premises on 05.02.2008, I do not understand what the consumer is trying to establish. The authorized engineers of CESC Limited had visited the premises on 05.02.2008, inspected the meters but could not disconnect the meter owing to stiff resistance offered by the persons present thereat. The authorized engineers of CESC Limited had visited the premises on 05.02.2008, inspected the meters but could not disconnect the meter owing to stiff resistance offered by the persons present thereat. Having no other alternative they had to disconnect the supplies to the aforesaid meters from the pillar box situated outside the premises." 19. When the question of stiff resistance is not mentioned in the First Information Report and in the letter dated 08.02.2008 by the respondent licensee, some reasons ought to have been given to justify the above findings. Then comes this finding "After going through all the relevant reports and documents, I have no doubt that pilferage of electricity has taken place by deliberate injection of signal/high voltage electrostatic discharge in order to make the meter under register. Such regular and successive interferences made to the meter had finally caused permanent damage to its display circuit and over-drawal resulted in damage to the service line, its termination etc. The parameters for calculating unmetered consumption of electricity which were considered in the order of provisional assessment have been kept unaltered. I finally adjudge the liability for unauthorized use of electricity through my this final order of assessment, pursuant to section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 amended-up-to-date, as under:- ASSESSED UNITS: = 175200 UNITS (30.00 KW x 0.80 DF) X (365 DAYS x 20 HRS) BILLED UNITS (For the period in question) = 95819 UNITS TOTAL UN-METERED UNITS = 79381 UNITS (For the period in question) The tariff rate applicable in your case is for commercial user. Under subsection (6) of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended up-to-date, charges are realizable at twice the applicable tariff rate (in this commercial) which conies to Rs. 15,60,984.00 with the following break up:- (A) Energy charge at the appropriate rate: Rs. 13,60,928.05 (B) Electricity duty payable to Govt. of W.B. Rs. 2,00,056.42 TOTAL Rs. 15,60,984.00 20. What reports or documents have been gone into by the Assessing Officer has not been stated. No evidence has been discussed to reach the finding that "pilferage of electricity .....................termination" (supra). Who made this injection, how was this injection made, does examination of the meter or any other apparatus or appliance reveal injection of signal high voltage electrostatic discharge, what other evidence is considered to arrive at this finding are not discussed. No evidence has been discussed to reach the finding that "pilferage of electricity .....................termination" (supra). Who made this injection, how was this injection made, does examination of the meter or any other apparatus or appliance reveal injection of signal high voltage electrostatic discharge, what other evidence is considered to arrive at this finding are not discussed. When a finding is made that "regular and successive interferences" were made to the meter some details of such interference ought to have been discussed. 21. It is now well established that advancing reasons is also a face of natural justice. It is quite plain on an examination of the above order that there is total absence of any reasons. Therefore, there is breach of the principles of natural justice and following the above decisions the Court has rightly entertained this writ application. Further, there is no substance in the argument of Mr. Banerjee that all these defects could be cured at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of Fndier vs. L.K. Ratna, 1986(4) SCC 537 , at para 17 cited by Mr. Pratap Chatterjee holds that even if an appellate stage is available the rights of natural justice must be provided in full at each and every stage. 22. In this type of case this right is very important because only by the reasons does a person affected by such reasons know the grounds on which his case has not been accepted. Upon knowledge of those grounds he may challenge that assessment order in appeal and/or use those grounds for better prosecution of his case in appeal. 23. For these reasons, both the assessment orders dated 28.03.2008 are set aside and quashed. Let fresh assessment be made in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 24. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.