Judgment : 1. Petitioner claims to be a registered non-profit making charitable society duly registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the petitioner, it is operating its activity in Flat No.3 – E – 21-1798/12 and Flat No.A-1, Ananda Apartments, Kadri, Mangalore, having electrical installation bearing No. KEH 34288. The Section Officer of the respondent – Company appeals to have inspected the premises of the petitioner on 19.09.2011 and submitted a report to the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.). No.1 Sub-Division, Mangalore – respondent No.3 herein stating that the petitioner was misusing the electricity for commercial purpose having obtained the electrical connection for residential purpose under LT-2. As such, a sum of Rs. 18,304/- was demanded as back billing charges. Petitioner was also called upon to file objections within 15 days, failing which the petitioner was required to deposit the back billing charges within 30 days. 2. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner submitted its reply/objections on 10.10.2011 vide Annexure-D denying the allegation that it was utilizing the premises for commercial purposes and had committed any illegality in misusing the electricity. Respondents No.3 herein did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner on merits and instead issued an endorsement dated 05.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to apply for change of tariff from LT-2 to LT-3 and to pay the amount within 15 days. Respondent No.3 also chose to advise the petitioner to prefer an appeal by depositing 50% of the amount, if he so desired. Aggrieved by this, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer (Elec.) – respondent No.2 herein, who has dismissed the appeal. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the consequential demand made on 21-02.2012 vide Annexure-J – notice issued in this regard. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent – Company and its authorities. 4. Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003, is titled as ‘Investigation and Enforcement’. Section 126 deals with inspection to be conducted of any place or premises by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of passing a provisional assessment order to his best judgment regarding the electricity charges payable by such person indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. 4. Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003, is titled as ‘Investigation and Enforcement’. Section 126 deals with inspection to be conducted of any place or premises by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of passing a provisional assessment order to his best judgment regarding the electricity charges payable by such person indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. Such an order of provisional assessment is required to be served on the person in occupation or possession of the premises. Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act reads as under: “(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person.” 5. It is, therefore, clear that once such objections are filed, an opportunity of hearing has to be given and thereafter final order could be passed considering the objections filed. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer viz., respondent No.3 has not provided any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, nor any final order is passed considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of the mandatory requirement provided under Section 126(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority has lost sight of this aspect while recording its findings affirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the entire procedure culminating in the order passed by the Appellate Authority gets vitiated. When the petitioner is denied of a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be cured by the Appellate Authority by providing an opportunity. 6. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer – respondent No.3 herein who shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order as contemplated under Section 126 (3) of the Act. The amount paid / deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the order to be passed by respondent No.3. Petition allowed.