JUDGMENT I.P. Mukerji, J.: The writ petitioner company is an exporter. It manufactures fabricated steel fastening items like drop rod, gate rod, earth rod and so on. It also exports non-alloy steel bars and rods. It has a factory or workshop at 248, G.T. Road (North), Salkia, Howrah- 711 106. On or about 9th May, 2002 its electricity supply line was disconnected by the respondent licensee. The ground was alleged theft of electricity by it. A writ application was instituted by it in this Court complaining of illegal disconnection. An appeal was preferred from an order in those proceedings. By its order dated 4th July, 2006 the Division Bench of this Court ordered adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority. The appellate authority re-adjudicated the case by its order dated 11th November, 2006. The writ petitioner has filed this writ application against that adjudication order. By the order of the appellate authority the assessment has been revised to Rs. 15,75,444/- from Rs. 15,12,744.30 by the Assessing Officer. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 2. There are the principally two grounds of challenge to this Appellate Authority's order urged by Mr. Samit Talukdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, Advocate. First, is that the connected load factor could not have been increased to the detriment of the consumer by the appellate authority. An appellant cannot be placed in a worse position by preferment of the appeal. Reliance has been placed on two decisions Shankar Popat Gaidhani vs. Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., reported in 2003(4) SCC 100 and Banarsi & Ors. vs. Ram Phal, reported in Judgement Today 2003(5) SC 224. 3. The other ground of challenge is regarding the utilisation factor used for the purpose of calculation of the energy utilisation. According to the writ petitioner as per the conditions of supply 29(v) this utilisation factor should have been taken as 0.5. Therefore, if, the utilisation factor is taken of 0.5 instead of 0.6 to 0.7, the assessed amount would be lower. According to the writ petitioner by such assessment the assessed amount which was Rs.15,12,744.30 has been increased to Rs.15,75,444/-. Further it has been contended that this increase in the connected load has been made on the basis of an inspection carried out on 14th November, 2006. The material period was May, 2002. According to the writ petitioner by such assessment the assessed amount which was Rs.15,12,744.30 has been increased to Rs.15,75,444/-. Further it has been contended that this increase in the connected load has been made on the basis of an inspection carried out on 14th November, 2006. The material period was May, 2002. The Assessing Officer has made assessment on the basis of inspection carried out on 9th May, 2002. This assessment of connected load by the Assessing Officer which was 120 KW should not have been varied by the appellate authority. 4. The grounds made out in the writ petition are perversity in the order passed by the appellate authority. Such ground of perversity is backed up by averments in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the writ petition. It is said that the order of the appellate authority contains apparent errors On the face of the order. 5. Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee has drawn my attention to the following finding of the Assessing Officer: "Based on the verbal submission made by the representative of consumer, I am if the view that UTILISATION FACTOR should be considered as 0.65 for Industrial Load instead of 0.7 as considered initially by CESC for the purpose of this assessment." 6. Determination of this utilisation factor was not assailed in the memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority or by any specific averment in the writ petition. Furthermore, he has taken me through condition 29(e) of the conditions of supply and argues that if the consumer could not satisfy the officer of the licensee about the load, hours of daily use, diversity factor or load factor as applicable and if there were no other reasonable means to ascertain the load factor, then 5 was to be taken. Since the above load factor or utility factor was taken on the basis of representation made on behalf of the writ petitioner/consumer there was no infirmity in making that calculation. 7. Further he has cited the decision Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar & Anr., reported in 2002(4) SCC 183 paras 9, 10 & 11 (to argue) that the appeal was an extension of the original proceedings. The appellate authority could increase the assessment, even if the respondent/licensee had not preferred any cross-appeal or cross-objection. 7. Further he has cited the decision Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar & Anr., reported in 2002(4) SCC 183 paras 9, 10 & 11 (to argue) that the appeal was an extension of the original proceedings. The appellate authority could increase the assessment, even if the respondent/licensee had not preferred any cross-appeal or cross-objection. Therefore, my attention was drawn to condition 30 of the conditions of supply to argue that under those conditions only the consumer had a right of appeal and not the respondent/licensee. He has also shown me Deokinandan Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2001(5) SCC 340 para 6 to argue that a plea not taken in the writ petition cannot be argued and Suresh Jindal vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2008(1) SCC 341 to argue that the statutory authority was free to take any action or decision to give effect to the statute and by increasing the assessment the appellate authority had exercised such power. Further more Mr. Sanyal has contended that none of the grounds urged before the Court have been taken in the writ petition. Discussion and conclusion: 8. The endeavour of the appellate authority as I understand, was to assess the actual consumption of electricity by the writ petitioner company during the period of alleged theft and make an assessment. To do this it tried to assess the total load. Thereafter, it tried to arrive at the connected load by deducting the load of inoperative machinery and equipment from the total load and deduce the actual consumption by multiplying the result by a utilisation factor. 9. I think the submission of Mr. Sanyal about utility factor or load factor is correct, I find from the records that this utility or load factor of 0.6 to 0.7 was taken on the basis of the statements made on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to challenge those statements on behalf of the consumer, before the appellate authority or in this writ application. Therefore, the challenge to the appellate authority's order on the ground that the utilisation or load factor was wrongly determined does not succeed. Also for the reason that 50 is not a factor to be always taken into account. It can only be taken into account when is no other evidence to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the load. Therefore, the challenge to the appellate authority's order on the ground that the utilisation or load factor was wrongly determined does not succeed. Also for the reason that 50 is not a factor to be always taken into account. It can only be taken into account when is no other evidence to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the load. If this utility factor or load 0.6 to 0.7 was determined on the basis of representation on behalf of the consumer, I do not think the assessing officer or the appellate authority has committed any error in proceeding on that basis. 10. But one point of Mr. Talukdar is very substantial. It is recorded in the order of the appellate authority that inspection was made by the authority of the metering apparatus on 4th November, 2006. Based on such inspection the appellate authority found the total industrial load to be 254.7 K.W. He took into account some machines and apparatus which were not using electricity and found that 85.9 K.W. was to be deducted from 254.7 K.W. to derive the connected load, by using the said utilisation factor. 11. Here the appellate authority committed an error which is manifest on the record. He has not shown how the total load of 4th November, 2006 was equivalent to the total load of May, 2002 when the alleged theft was committed. Some discussion and reasons were necessary to derive this finding. Further this deduction of 85.9 K.W. on the ground that a few machines were lying on the floor disconnected from electricity is not good reason at all. He had to show that those machines were also in such state in May, 2002 or at any rate, the disconnected load was 85.9 K.W. in 2002. He has not done so. Although, Mr. Sanyal has strenuously taken me through the order of the appellate authority as well as through all the records to justify the order, I think that an order has to be justified on the reasons contained in that order. A statutory authority is enjoined to expose its mental process in passing an order by giving reasons so that the exact mental process is known. It is only by revealing the mental process by reasons that the justification of the order can be assessed. In the absence of reasons it is to be presumed that the order is incorrect. 12. A statutory authority is enjoined to expose its mental process in passing an order by giving reasons so that the exact mental process is known. It is only by revealing the mental process by reasons that the justification of the order can be assessed. In the absence of reasons it is to be presumed that the order is incorrect. 12. Here, some reasons have been given but there are apparent errors in them as stated above. These apparent errors in the reasons in a sense tantamount to no reason at all. 13. Further I am bound by the decision of the Supreme Court Shankar Popat Gaidhani vs. Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. reported in 2003(4) SCC 100 and Banarsi & Ors. vs. Ram Phal, reported in JT 2003(5) SC 224 that an appellant cannot be worse off in an appeal, than it was in the decree or order appealed against, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection. 14. For those reasons the order of the appellate authority dated 11th November, 2006 is set aside. 15. In my opinion for the reasons given above the assessment order dated 16.5.2002 was correct and the same is upheld. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.