Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 25, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner’s flat of the premises under construction without any further delay and also to withdraw the letter dated 3rd January, 2011.” The thing described in prayer(a) as a notice dated January 3, 2011 is at p.33, it is actually an intimation and it was issued by the authorized officer of CESC informing the petitioner the reasons for disconnection of supply of electricity to the premises in question under s.135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the fact of initiation of assessment proceedings under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. By the letter the petitioner was asked to contact the assessing officer of CESC. There is nothing to show that till the date of filing this petition the petitioner reacted to the intimation dated January 3, 2011 in any manner or submitted any representation to the assessing officer of CESC that the order of provisional assessment was not served on her. Now alleging that the supply was disconnected wrongfully, illegally, malafide and making false allegation the intimation has been challenged. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since no order of provisional assessment was ever passed and served on the petitioner, the petitioner, having a statutory right to object to the disconnection and defend herself, did not get opportunity to do that. He prays for an order directing the assessing officer to pass an order of provisional assessment, give the petitioner an opportunity of submitting objection and pass an order of final assessment under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The case argued by counsel has not been stated anywhere in the petition. I do not find any reason to entertain the argument, especially when it is evident that the petitioner has moved this petition making bald and wild allegations and evidently suppressing material facts. Counsel for CESC has produced copies of (i) an order of provisional assessment dated January 3, 2011; (ii) a letter dated January 3, 2011 written to the officer in charge of Golabari police station supplying information of theft of energy by the petitioner; (iii) photos in support of the allegation of theft of energy; and (iv) the order of final assessment dated January 21, 2010 (sic). The orders were sent to the petitioner mentioning her address that was mentioned in the impugned intimation. It was mentioned in the final order that in spite of service of the order of provisional assessment the petitioner neither submitted any representation nor appeared before the assessing officer on the scheduled date. The petitioner has not stated any case that no order of provisional assessment passed by the assessing officer was served on her. She has not stated either that the order of final assessment passed by the assessing officer was not served on her. In spite of the fact that she received the intimation of disconnection dated January 3, 2011, and that the supply was disconnected as back as January 3, 2011 alleging theft of energy, she remained absolutely silent until she decided to bring this petition all of a sudden alleging that her supply was disconnected illegally, mala fide and making false allegation. At the date she brought this petition she had already lost her statutory right to appeal against the order of the assessing officer to the appellate authority under s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence there is no question of directing the assessing officer to pass the requisite order of provisional assessment, give the petitioner an opportunity of submitting objection and pass the order of final assessment under s.126. These orders cannot be passed by the assessing officer twice over. In my opinion, this is an utterly frivolous petition filed making wild and incorrect allegations. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.