JUDGMENT :- 1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the respondent/Executive Engineer in order bearing No.EE/BTL/TAII/F.Theft/D.No.1425/0405, dated 30.06.2004, to quash the same and pass further orders. 2. The petitioner is running a lodge in the name and style of "Appus Cottage" at Door No.61/364C on Fern Hill Road, Kodaikanal and he has taken the said building on lease. The lodge is having 17 rooms with restaurant facilities with seven electricity connections, one of which is a domestic connection for his residential portion. 3. Whileso, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kodaikanal, conducted an inspection on 26.04.2004 on his premises. Out of seven electricity connections, six connections were found to be in order and one connection was found to be running in a defective condition. On this basis, the said inspecting authority came to the conclusion that there was theft of electricity. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 29.04.2004, calling upon him to appear for an enquiry and the enquiry was conducted on 29.06.2004. The Enquiry Officer on considering the available records issued an assessment order as per clause 8.05 (Schedule 37 part I-Theft of energy) of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity on 30.06.2004. In the assessment order issued to the petitioner, he was directed to pay the extra levy amount of Rs.4,02,732/- in equal monthly installments and he was also given liberty to file an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul, as per clause 12.01 and 12.02 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. However, for the reason that the respondent while passing the assessment order, has issued a mechanical order just filling up only a sum of Rs.4,02,732/-. It was contended that since the respondent has passed the assessment order in a standard stereo-type format, it shows that they have not applied their mind. Further, no reasons have been mentioned under what circumstance the respondent has arrived at such a huge amount of Rs.4,02,732/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned stereo-type order has placed only two submissions. Firstly, the impugned order does not mention on what basis, the case of the petitioner has been dealt with. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned stereo-type order has placed only two submissions. Firstly, the impugned order does not mention on what basis, the case of the petitioner has been dealt with. Secondly, it is a non speaking order and does not disclose any application of mind. Further, he submitted that this Court has repeatedly condemned the practice of passing orders in a cyclostyle format by filling in the blanks. Therefore, on this basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, in which, it has been stated that on 26.04.2004, when the inspection team conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner's lodge, it was found that the petitioner's lodge was having seven electricity service connections, out of seven connections, six connections were found to be in order and one connection was found to be running in a defective condition. Therefore, the inspecting authority on proper checking of the meters installed in the petitioner's lodge came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed an offence of theft of electricity. On that basis, a show cause notice was given on 29.04.2004 calling upon the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be held on 29.06.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner himself has admitted that he received the show cause notice. The petitioner was also given a reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why the respondent should not proceed against him. After completion of the enquiry, the final assessment order was passed on 30.06.2004 calling upon the petitioner to pay the extra levy amount of Rs.4,02,732/-. Therefore, the said impugned order cannot be found fault with in respect of the allegation that the respondent has passed a stereo-type order. Further, it has been mentioned that the impugned order has been passed only in the proper format as per Electricity (Schedule 37 part 1, Theft of energy) and as per the statutory provision, the respondent has to issue final assessment order only in the prescribed format. Since the prescribed format has been issued after mentioning the proper amount payable by the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the format in which the amount of Rs.4,02,732/- has been mentioned for payment by the petitioner is a stereo-type order. Since the prescribed format has been issued after mentioning the proper amount payable by the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the format in which the amount of Rs.4,02,732/- has been mentioned for payment by the petitioner is a stereo-type order. In any event, the petitioner has not preferred an appeal within sixty days before the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul, as per clause 12.01 and 12.02 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. 6. On this basis, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner after receiving show cause notice dated 29.04.2004 failed to participate in the enquiry conducted on 29.06.2004. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer having left with no other option has passed the final assessment order only on the available records that too in the terms and conditions of supply of Electricity (Schedule 37 part 1, Theft of energy). Further, he has submitted that the petitionerhaving not chosen to submit any reply and he has again refused to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the respondent has finally passed the assessment order in the prescribed format as per the statutory provision, hence it is not open to the petitioner to say that the respondent has passed stereo-type order. In any event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he should have preferred an appeal within sixty days before the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul, as per clause 12.01 and 12.02 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. But the petitioner without availing the appeal remedy available under the statue, filed the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition without availingalternate efficacy remedy is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard the submissions made on both parties. 8. The petitioner is running a lodge in the name and style of "Appus Cottage" at Door No.61/364C on Fern Hill Road, Kodaikanal. The said lodge is having seven electricity connections, out of seven connections, one connection is a domestic connection for his residential portion. Whileso, on 26.04.2004, the Assistant Executive Engineer from the Distribution Circle of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kodaikanal, conducted an inspection on the petitioner's premises. Out of seven electricity connections, six connections were found to be in order, but one connection was found to be running in a defective condition. Whileso, on 26.04.2004, the Assistant Executive Engineer from the Distribution Circle of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kodaikanal, conducted an inspection on the petitioner's premises. Out of seven electricity connections, six connections were found to be in order, but one connection was found to be running in a defective condition. Therefore, the inspecting authority on proper examination of the meter, came to the conclusion that there was theft of electricity. On that basis, they have also issued a show cause notice dated 29.04.2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the respondent has not proceeded againsthim for having committed such offence. The petitioner has admitted that he received the said show cause notice, but he failed to submit his explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was also conducted on 29.06.2004 and even in the said enquiry, the petitioner did not participate. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on perusal of the records, has passed the assessment order on 30.06.2004 as per clause 8.05 (Schedule 37 Part I-Theft of energy) of terms and conditions of supply of electricity. In the assessment order, the petitioner was directed to pay the extra levy amount of Rs.4,02,732/- in equal monthly installments and he was also given liberty to file an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul, as per clause 12.01 and 12.02 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. Admittedly, the petitioner from the records produced by both sides failed to respond the show cause notice dated 29.04.2004. Further, he has also failed to participate in the enquiry held on 29.06.2004. Therefore, the assessment order was finally passed. In the assessment order, though the petitioner was directed to pay the extra levy amount of Rs.4,02,732/- in equal monthly installments, he was also informed to file an appeal before the Superintending Engineer as per clause 12.01 and 12.02. But the petitioner again failed to exercise the appeal remedy, which is available under the statutory provision before the Superintending Engineer. Further, the allegation raised by the petitioner in respect of issuance of stereo-type order also does not find any favour for the reason that the respondent in terms of statutory provision is bound to issue the assessment order only in a prescribed format. Further, the allegation raised by the petitioner in respect of issuance of stereo-type order also does not find any favour for the reason that the respondent in terms of statutory provision is bound to issue the assessment order only in a prescribed format. That apart, the petitioner who failed to comply and obey the conditional order of stay dated 29.09.2004 passed in W.P.M.P.No.25028 of 2004 directing to pay the first three installments within a period of two weeks from that day can not complain that the order in the format is wrong. It is also well settled that the writ Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the constitution should also keep in view the conduct of the party. In the light of his subsequent conduct in not obeying this Court's order, I do not find any merits in the writ petition to say that the impugned assessment order is a stereo-type one. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition and therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.