ORDER By the Court.- The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the provisional assessment order dated 14.8.2012 made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 2003. (the Act for short). 2. During pendency of this writ petition the respondents have passed order making final assessment under Section 126 of the Act. The petitioner intends to challenge the said order as well by way of amendment. The said order has been challenged mainly on the ground that provisional assessment as well as the final assessment under Section 126 of the Act has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 126. read with Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2003 as well as the provisions of the Electric Supply Code Regulation. 2005 and amended Regulation 2010. 3. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure has been laid down for making provisional assessment as well as final assessment under Section 126 of the Act but the said procedure has not been followed. Learned cow1sel particularly laid emphasis on the provision for submission of inspection report after holding inspection clearly indicating the evidences substantiating the fact of unauthorized use of electricity. He submitted that according to the said prevision, there must be sufficient evidence to support the fact of unauthorized use of electricity and the report should contain the details of such evidences. But in the instant case, neither there is any inspection report. nor the other requirements of law have been complied with. The assessment order(s) is/are, therefore, wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the writ petition. However, no statement has been made controverting the petitioner's allegation that the assessment has been made without any inspection report. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though there is no such report, the allegation of unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner is fully described in the FIR lodged against it. Learned counsel further raised the objection of maintainability of the writ petition in view of the provision for appeal against the final assessment order under Section 126 of the Act. 5. He further submitted that the objection of the petitioner regarding non-submission of the report is only technical and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Learned counsel further raised the objection of maintainability of the writ petition in view of the provision for appeal against the final assessment order under Section 126 of the Act. 5. He further submitted that the objection of the petitioner regarding non-submission of the report is only technical and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties raising the above controversies, this writ petition deserves elaborate hearing and consideration on the issues involved in the petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition shall be heard. 8. Since the respondents have appeared no notice needs be issued. I.A. No. 2614/2012 9. In this I.A., the writ petitioner-applicant has prayed for restoration of electrical connection. 10. It has been stated that petitioner has filed the writ petition praying. inter alia for quashing the provisional assessment order dated 14.8.2012 issued by the electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 2003, (the Act for short). According to the petitioner, though the said assessment has been made in purported exercise of power under Section 126 of the Act, the assessment is not based on any foundation and is wholly arbitrary. The amount of assessment in the said order is Rs. 40.00 lacs and odd for the period in question. in which the petitioner has been alleged to have unauthorizedly used electricity. The petitioner is a consumer of the Electricity Board since a long time and its yearly average bill is Rs. 4-5 lacs. There is thus, no basis for assessment of loss of more than 40.00 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final assessment has been made during pendency of the writ petition. which is wholly without any basis. It seems that the petitioner has been penalised for filing the writ petition. The assessment order suffers from inherent illegality and is not sustainable in law. The petitioner's Industry has been closed on the said arbitrary ground and if the electrical connection of the petitioner is not restored. it shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 11. The application has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. 12. It has been stated, inter alia, that final assessment order has been passed under the provision of Section 126 of the Act. in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. it shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 11. The application has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. 12. It has been stated, inter alia, that final assessment order has been passed under the provision of Section 126 of the Act. in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The amount of loss is to the tune of more than Rs. 40.00 lacs. The petitioner is not entitled for restoration of electrical connection unless it deposits the said amount of loss. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has got alternative remedy to file appeal against the final assessment order under Section 126 of the Act and pray for interim order of restoration of electrical connection before the appellate authority. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The petitioner had earlier challenged the provisional assessment order in the writ petition on several grounds. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have passed order of final assessment under Section 126 of the Act. The loss assessed is more than. Rs, 40.00 lacs for one year of the period in question. The petitioner has challenged the sad assessment on the ground that the order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and has been made without following the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Act and other related provisions. The petitioner emphatically asserted that the annual average bills of the petitioner were Rs. 4-5 lacs, of the period before the impugned assessment. The respondents were asked to seek instruction on the said, claim and on the instruction they have also not disputed the same. The period of impugned assessment is said to be one year. In view of the above, the assessment of loss shown in the impugned order is more than six times. Though the said order is said to be supported by formula of assessment. the respondents have not brought anything on record to explain the vast inconsistency. The petitioner has claimed that it has cleared all the bills and nothing was due against the petitioner, However, since the order of final assessment has• been passed under the provision of Section 126 of the Act. the electrical line of the petitioner cannot be restored during pendency of the writ petition unless the petitioner deposited part of the amount of the assessment. 15. the electrical line of the petitioner cannot be restored during pendency of the writ petition unless the petitioner deposited part of the amount of the assessment. 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering that the closure of Industry would not be useful for either party and it may render several employees jobless and affect them and their dependents adversely, the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's electrical connection within two days. if the petitioner deposits Rs. 10.00 lacks with the respondents. The said deposit shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties and subject to result of the writ petition. 16. This application stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3410/2012 17. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for three weeks' time to file reply to this I.A. Prayer is allowed. Application disposed of.