ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. -- 1. By filing this intra Court appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8092/2011. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be stated, as under :- On 20.6.2007, the vigilance team of the respondents carried out the inspection of the appellant’s premises. In the inspection, it was found that the appellant was indulged in unauthorized use of electricity and as such, the panchnama was prepared regarding the said unauthorized use of electricity. Thereafter, the assessing officer made a provisional assessment, as provided under section 126 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the Act) vide order dated 7.8.2007, assessing a sum of Rs. 5,06,056/- to be recoverable from the appellant. The said provisional assessment order dated 7.8.2007 was served upon the appellant on 25.8.2007. The appellant submitted objections against the said provisional assessment on 31.8.2007. However, even after receipt of the objections, no final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act was passed by the assessing officer. Thereafter, on 20.9.2011 the respondents disconnected the appellant’s electricity connection. Feeling aggrieved by the said action of disconnection of electricity connection, the appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings raised by the parties, dismissed the writ petition by accepting the respondent’s plea that the appellant has an alternative remedy available under the Act or approaching the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum (for short the Forum). The learned Single Judge also accepted the stand taken by the respondents, that the provisional assessment order itself is the final assessment order, which can be challenged in appeal under section 127 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents. 5. Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition, holding that the appellant has got an alternative remedy of approaching the Forum. According to him, the grievance against alleged unauthorized use of electricity would not lie before the Forum. 5. Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition, holding that the appellant has got an alternative remedy of approaching the Forum. According to him, the grievance against alleged unauthorized use of electricity would not lie before the Forum. He further argued that learned Single Judge has also ignored the fact that the respondents were required to pass a final assessment order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as the appellant had already submitted the objections (Annexure P/14) against the provisional assessment order and only that final order can be challenged under section 127 of the Act. In the circumstances, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and this appeal may be allowed, by directing the assessing officer of the respondents to consider the objections submitted by the appellant and pass a final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act. 6. Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the respondents that since the appellant did not submit the objections within 7 days of passing of the provisional assessment order and also did not deposit the assessed amount, the action taken by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. She argued that the appellant had committed theft of electricity as such a criminal complaint under section 135 of the Act was also filed against him. She further argued that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in directing the appellant to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the Forum and to file appeal under section 127 of the Act. 7. Before dealing with the question raised in this appeal, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 42 (5) of the Act provides for establishment of a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers, in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. It provides that every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, shall establish such forum. Section 42 (5) of the Act provides for establishment of a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers, in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. It provides that every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, shall establish such forum. MPERC (Establishment of Forum and Electricity Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of the Consumers) (Revision-I) Regulations, 2009 (for short, Regulations) provides for constitution of the Forum. Clause 2 (m) of the Regulations defines the term ‘Grievance’. The definition of the term “Grievance’ specifically excludes from its ambit the ‘unauthorized use of electricity’, as provided under section 126 of the Act. In the circumstances, the Forum established under section 42 (5) of the Act is not empowered to deal with the grievance of the consumers regarding ‘unauthorized use of electricity’, as provided under section 126 of the Act. As would be clear from the pleadings raised by the parties, the disconnection of the electricity connection in question is not on account of any other dues, but is ordered on account of non-deposit of the amount assessed by way of provisional assessment order dated 7.8.2007. Having regard to this position, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in relegating the appellant to the Grievance Redressal Forum for redressal of his grievance impugned before the writ Court. We are of the view that the grievance of the appellant is relating to the provisional assessment order passed on the basis of alleged unauthorized use of electricity and for redressal of the said grievance, the appellant cannot be directed to appraoch the Forum, as the said grievance cannot be adjudicated by the said Forum. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that as provided under section 127 (2) of the Act, the provisional assessment order dated 7.8.2007 was served upon the appellant on 25.8.2007 and as provided in the said order within 7 days on 31.8.2007, he submitted his objection to the same before the assessing officer. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that as provided under section 127 (2) of the Act, the provisional assessment order dated 7.8.2007 was served upon the appellant on 25.8.2007 and as provided in the said order within 7 days on 31.8.2007, he submitted his objection to the same before the assessing officer. Thus, though the objections (Annexure P/14) were submitted by the appellant well within the time limit of 7 days of receipt of the provisional assessment order fixed by the respondents, the assessing officer did not afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and did not pass a final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act and taken recourse of the disconnection of the electricity connection, on account of non-deposit of the amount of provisional assessment order. 9. In our considered view, the aforesaid entire action of the respondents is violative of the provisions contained in section 126 of the Act. As would be clear from a bare regarding of section 126 (2) of the Act, it provides for service of provisional assessment order upon the person in occupation of possession or in-charge of the place of premises in the matter prescribed. The said person, on whom the order is served, is entitled to file objections against the provisional assessment order before the Assessment Officer. The Assessment Officer is then required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the objection and to pass a final order of assessment within 30 days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. It is this final order, which is to be passed after considering the objections, as aforesaid, can be challenged by filing an appeal, as provided under section 127 of the Act. 10. Thus, the respondents having resorted to the disconnection of appellant’s electricity connection, without following the provisions of section 126 of the Act, the learned Single Judge should have interferred into the matter instead of directing the appellant to approach the Forum and to file appeal under section 127 of the Act. 11. 10. Thus, the respondents having resorted to the disconnection of appellant’s electricity connection, without following the provisions of section 126 of the Act, the learned Single Judge should have interferred into the matter instead of directing the appellant to approach the Forum and to file appeal under section 127 of the Act. 11. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and direct restoration of electricity connection of the appellant in the premises in question with a further direction to the assessing officer to treat the objections to be within limitation and to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and pass a final order of assessment, as provided under section 126 (3) of the Act. The final order as may passed may be challenged by the appellant before the Appellant Authority by invoking provisions of section 127 of the Act, if required. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.