JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari,to quash the order, dated 21.2.2008, of the first respondent issued vide Letter No. SE/TNEB/TVM/ UPI/O&M/NO.56-1/06-07/4-328. 2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner committed theft of electricity on 24.2.2007. The petitioner admitted the theft of electricity and offered to get the offence compounded on the very same day. After the theft was compounded by paying compounding charges, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.5.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why additional levy of Rs.59,650/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand six hundred and fifty only) be not imposed. 3. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice, but the authorities being dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, decided to impose additional levy of Rs.59,650/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand six hundred and fifty only). 4. Being aggrieved by the show cause notice/order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, i.e., appellate authority which passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to pay 40% of the demanded amount, which was deposited. Thereafter, the impugned order stands passed confirming the additional levy. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in law, as no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, by the first respondent before deciding the appeal. The order of appellate authority is also challenged on the ground that it is totally non speaking order, as it is not dealt with the contentions raised in the grounds appeal, therefore unsustainable in law. 6. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The quasi judicial authority while deciding the appeal, was bound to give opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The impugned order having been passed without giving opportunity of personal hearing and being non speaking order, cannot be sustained in law. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for deciding the appeal afresh on merit, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No cost.