ORAL ORDER I.A. No. 7357 of 2013: The interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant Pramod Kumar Drolia stating that the sole petitioner, Sri Parmeshwar Lal Drolia, had died on 9.1.2013 and the applicant is his eldest son. It is further stated that the sole petitioner had left behind four sons and four daughters, out of whom, three of the daughters are married and one is a widow. The names of the other heirs of the deceased sole petitioner have been brought on the record by way of a supplementary affidavit as stated in para-4 therein. It is further stand of the applicant that he being the eldest son is looking after the maintenance of the house property at Lakhisarai in which the electric meter and electric connection in question was installed. It is further submitted that the other heirs of the sole writ petitioner are staying in different places outside Lakhisarai and they are not taking any interest for their substitution as writ petitioners. Therefore, a prayer has been made that the applicant may be substituted in place of the deceased sole petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the matter relates to question of liability which has arisen on the final assessment order dated 30.3.2011 passed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer-cum- Assessing Officer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Lakhisarai and thus there is no adverse interest of any of the heirs involved in the matter and it is not a benefit that the petitioner had sought in the writ petition rather it is a matter of liability and therefore the applicant may be permitted to be substituted in place of the sole petitioner for pursuing the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Electricity Board has no objection to the substitution of the applicant in place of the deceased sole petitioner. 4. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I.A. No. 7357 of 2013 is allowed and it is directed that the name of the sole petitioner, Parmeshwar Lal Drolia shall be deleted and in his place the applicant Pramod Kumar Drolia shall be substituted. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board. 6. The petitioner seeks quashing of the final assessment order No. 1/2010-11 dated 30.3.2011 passed by respondent no.3, Assistant Electrical Engineer-cum-Assessing Officer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Lakhisarai and for further consequential directions on the respondents to raise the electrical bill of the petitioner treating the same as domestic supply of energy for the month of July, 2010 and the subsequent months. 7. The short facts of the case are that the original petitioner had a domestic meter for supply of energy from the respondent-Board. It is not in dispute that the energy bills for the same were being paid on regular basis and the bill for July, 2010 dated 11.8.2010 amounting to Rs. 2000/- was also paid in cash within time on 31.8.2010. 8. It is the stand of the respondent-Board that an inspection of the premises of the petitioner was made by the Officers of the Board on 6.8.2010 and a report was prepared, a copy of which was handed over to the representative of the consumer, namely, Roushan Kumar who duly signed on the report in token of the same. As per the said report, although the total wattage was found to be within the sanctioned load of 3KW but it was stated in the report that the consumer was found utilizing energy for commercial purposes but no other details as to the nature of the commercial use is to be found in the report. The report dated 6.8.2010 was signed by an Officer of the Board whose designation is not stated but admitted to be that of Junior Engineer on 6.8.2010. It is counter signed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Lakhisarai on 9.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner claiming to have not received the bill for August and September, 2010, sent his representative and obtained the duplicate bill which was issued showing as bill for the month of September, 2010 dated 25.10.2010 with a current bill of 1483.94 and arrear of 24016.22 amounting to a total of Rs. 25,500.16. The original petitioner thereafter filed his representation on 1.11.2010 before the Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lakhisarai followed by other reminders. Subsequently, the provisional punitive bill dated 24.12.2010 of 3KW C/S –II was issued to the petitioner by the Electrical Executive Engineer raising an amount of Rs. 25,500.16. The original petitioner thereafter filed his representation on 1.11.2010 before the Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lakhisarai followed by other reminders. Subsequently, the provisional punitive bill dated 24.12.2010 of 3KW C/S –II was issued to the petitioner by the Electrical Executive Engineer raising an amount of Rs. 26,488.80 and after deducting the amount of Rs. 2727.84 already paid for the previous 12 months, raised a punitive bill of Rs. 23,760.96 against the original petitioner. The original petitioner was also issued notice by the Assistant Electrical Engineer fixing the date of final assessment on 25.3.2011 for giving him an opportunity to remain present on the said date so as to be heard in the matter. Thereafter the final impugned assessment order dated 30.3.2011 was passed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer directing the original petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 23,760.96. Aggrieved by the same, the original petitioner had approached this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings starting from the inspection are without jurisdiction as the inspection has not been made by the statutorily authorized Officer, namely, the Assessing Officer who, in the present matter, is the Assistant Electrical Engineer, rather a so called inspection has been carried out by a Junior Engineer of the Board who is not authorized under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as an Assessing Officer and therefore, not competent to make an inspection in terms of Clause 11 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 which is statutory in nature. It is thus, submitted that the said report, which is by an incompetent authority, could not have formed the basis for passing any order under Section 126 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisional assessment order has also not been issued by the Assessing Officer rather it has been issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer who is a superior authority and therefore, for that reason also the final assessment order made by the Assessing officer is to be treated as having been made on the direction of a superior authority which is not permissible to any statutory authority and accordingly, the final assessment order is vitiated. 11. 11. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.: (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 223 in which it was held by the Apex Court in para-51 of the decision as follows: “51. A repository of power acts ultra vires either when he acts in excess of his power in the narrow sense or when he abuses his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness. See. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. V. Wednesbury Corporation: (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 1 All ER 498. In the words of Lord Macnaghten in Mayor & C. Westminster Corporation V. London and North Western Railway: 1905 AC 426, 430: 93 LT 143. “… It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first.” In Barium Chemicals Ltd. V. Company Law Board: 1966 Supp SCR 311: AIR 1967 SC 295 : (1966) 36 Comp Case 639 (SCR pp. 359-60, per Shelat, J.) “….. Even if (the statutory order) is passed in good faith and with best of intention to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the power, since the authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction requisite under the legislation. In any one of these situations it can well be said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts.” In Renusagar, Mukharji, J., as he then was, states: (SCC p. 104, para 86): “The exercise of power whether legislative or administrative will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. Similarly, if the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated.” 12. The other decision relied upon by learned counsel is that of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & others: (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 111, in para-40 of which it has been held as follows: “40. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof.” 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further challenges the quantum of the final penal bill stating that the same could not have been calculated on the basis of Tariff for commercial connection rather it should have been calculated on the domestic category to which the meter of the petitioner belonged and taking the same the bill would have been as per the admitted bill amount for the past 12 months amounting to Rs. 2727.84 and should have been only twice the said amount, namely, Rs. 5455.68. In support of the same, learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of Sk.Jafar Ali & Anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors: AIR 2010 Calcutta 84, in paras 11 to 14 of which it has been held as follows:- “11. 5455.68. In support of the same, learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of Sk.Jafar Ali & Anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors: AIR 2010 Calcutta 84, in paras 11 to 14 of which it has been held as follows:- “11. Thus, by the abovementioned amendment, now the presumption of the period of unauthorized use of electricity for different categories has been abolished and in respect of all the categories, once the unauthorized use of electricity has been proved, the consumer should be liable to pay for the period of actual unauthorized consumption found on inspection and if it is not possible to come to any conclusion about any definite period, for a fixed period of one year irrespective of the categories to which the consumer belongs. The word “categories” used in the old sub-section (5) has been totally applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5)” has been retained. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that the appropriate authority erred in law in calculating the amount at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable to commercial rate notwithstanding the fact that the meter used for commercial purpose situated in the said building has not been tampered with and it is the meter relating to domestic consumption that has been tampered. 13. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Panja that the assessment should be made at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable to the category of service for which the electricity was allegedly used and not the relevant category of service provided by the Electric Company. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that the highest rate applicable for commercial purpose is Rs. 5.70/- per unit whereas the maximum amount of rate per unit for domestic purpose is Rs. 3.67/-. It appears from the report of the inspection that the writ-petitioners tried to illegally utilize electricity for commercial purpose at a cheaper rate of Rs. 3.67/- instead of Rs. 5.70/-. 5.70/- per unit whereas the maximum amount of rate per unit for domestic purpose is Rs. 3.67/-. It appears from the report of the inspection that the writ-petitioners tried to illegally utilize electricity for commercial purpose at a cheaper rate of Rs. 3.67/- instead of Rs. 5.70/-. By the aforesaid provision of the Act after amendment, the respondent authority is entitled to assess at the rate double the rate applicable to domestic category meaning thereby at the rate of 3.67/- x 2 = Rs. 7.34/- which is more than the rate applicable for commercial purpose and, at the same time, for a period of one year because the respondent itself could not arrive at any definite period of unauthorized consumption. 14. It is now settled law that if a Statute permits an authority to act in a particular way, that act must be done in that way or should not be done at all. In this case, the law has not permitted the respondent authority to assess at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the category for which the electricity was illegally used for one year notwithstanding the fact that according to its own report it is unable to arrive at any conclusion as to the period of such unauthorized use. The phrase “applicable for the relevant category of the services specified in sub-section (5)” appearing in sub-section (6), after the amendment has become meaningless because the word “categories” appearing in the sub-section (5) as it stood prior to amendment has been totally deleted and a fixed period of one year had been incorporated in all categories of the consumer as the period of unauthorized use if the respondent cannot come to any conclusion as to the period of unauthorized consumption. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the phrase “applicable for the relevant category of the services specified in sub-section (5)” appearing in sub-section (6) should be reasonably construed as the rate “applicable for the relevant category of the services to which the consumer belongs.” If the intention of the legislature was to realize at the rate applicable to the category for which the electricity was actually improperly used as contended by Mr. Panja, the language would not have framed in the way as it stands now.” Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that the writ application is not maintainable as there is provision for alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein an appeal against a final order of assessment under Section 126 has been provided. 15. Learned counsel for the Board also relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. M/s Sri Bir Ispat: 1999(1) PLJR 466 for the proposition that the Board’s officials are empowered to inspect the consumers’ premises and therefore inspection itself cannot be held to be illegal in the matter. Learned counsel relies upon para-8 of the said decision which is in the following terms: “8. The Boards officials are empowered to inspect the consumers’ premises. As the inspection is carried out in order to find out/detect the use of unauthorized load and other irregularities in consumption of the electricity, it is not necessary for the Board to give advance notice about the inspection to the consumer, because such a notice will frustrate the very purpose of the surprise inspection. But inspection must be made in the presence of the consumer or his representative if available on the spot. If they are either not available or are not willing to co-operate with the officials in the inspection, it will be open to the Board to carry on the inspection. But fairness demands that in such a case as far as possible the inspection must be done in presence of some independent persons other than the employees of the Board. If at the time of inspection, the consumer is found using the electricity in excess of the contracted load and/or is guilty of other irregularities/illegalities in connection with the electricity supply he must be supplied with the inspection report and given a show cause notice before passing any order against him. Before imposing any additional liability in the form of electricity charges, it is necessary that the consumer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In absence of such procedural safeguards, if any order is passed or electricity bills are raised adversely effecting the consumer the same are liable to be declared as arbitrary and unfair. Before imposing any additional liability in the form of electricity charges, it is necessary that the consumer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In absence of such procedural safeguards, if any order is passed or electricity bills are raised adversely effecting the consumer the same are liable to be declared as arbitrary and unfair. In the instant case, the impugned order/bills have been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore, they cannot be sustained.” 16. Learned counsel also relies upon the statements contained in the counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner was using the domestic connection for non-domestic purposes by using the same in the shop Radha Krishna Vastralaya and thus the provisional penal bill and final assessment order are fully justified. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that mere existence of an alternative remedy is not a complete bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the writ court as the same is merely a matter of discretion and where the proceedings and orders are found to be without jurisdiction, it is open to this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact that there is alternative remedy of appeal provided in the matter. 18. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reference to the shop of Radha Krishna Vastralaya in the inspection report and, as a matter of fact, the original petitioner in his representation has denied the very fact of existence of any such Radha Krishna Vastralaya being a shop belonging to him or being carried on in the said premises. 19. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. In my view, the mere existence of alternative remedy would not be a bar to the present proceedings in view of a large number of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in the matter. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.: (1998) 8 SCC 1 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, paras-14,15 and 20 of which are quoted below:- “14. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.: (1998) 8 SCC 1 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, paras-14,15 and 20 of which are quoted below:- “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been con-sistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic, ‘whirlpool’, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 20. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic, ‘whirlpool’, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court is entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.” Evidently in the present matter the inspection has not been carried out by a statutory authority nor the provisional assessment order issued by the statutory authority and thus it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction against the action of the respondents. 21. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Clause 11.1 (a),(b) & (c) of the Bihar State Electricity Supply Code, 2007 are quoted below:- “126. Assessment.- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (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. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. (5) If the assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified to sub-section (5). Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,- (a) ‘assessing officer’ means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity – (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.” “11.1. Procedure for Inspection, Provisional Assessment, Hearing and Final Assessment in case of Unauthorized Use of Electricity (UUE) under Section 126 of the Act. (a) Inspection.- (i) The Assessing Officer designated under Section 126 of the Act by the State Govt. shall suo-moto, or on receipt of reliable information on unauthorized use of electricity or on instruction from higher authority, promptly conduct inspection and search of such place or premises, exercising due diligence. (ii) The Assessing Officer, if required to do so, shall handover his business card to the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises before entering the premises. Photo ID card shall be carried by each team members. (iii) The access to premises shall be in accordance to clauses 6.32 to 6.36 of the Code. Provided that the occupant of the place or premises of inspection or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the inspection. Photo ID card shall be carried by each team members. (iii) The access to premises shall be in accordance to clauses 6.32 to 6.36 of the Code. Provided that the occupant of the place or premises of inspection or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the inspection. (iv) A report shall be prepared at site giving details of connected load, condition and details of old seals and resealing done, working of meter, details of new seals, etc. The report shall mention any irregularity noticed which may lead to an indulgence of unauthorized use of electricity in the format given in Annexure-6. The Inspecting Officer shall carry seals for this purpose. (v) The report shall clearly indicate whether or not conclusive evidence substantiating the fact that UUE was found. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report. The report shall be signed by each member of the inspection team and handed over to the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by such person or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and may be photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to such person under Registered Post/Speed Post on the day or the next day of the inspection. (vi) Within 3 working days of the date of inspection, the Assessing Officer shall analyze the case after carefully considering all the evidence including the consumption pattern, wherever available and the report of inspection. If it is concluded that no unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, no further action will be taken. (b) Provisional Assessment and Notice to the Consumer.-(i) If the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that Unauthorized Use of Electricity has taken place in the premises (as defined under Explanation under Section 126 of the Act), he will serve a provisional assessment order upon the person in occupation or in-charge of the premises, giving 7 days time under proper receipt for filing objections, if any, against the Provisional Assessment Order and fixing a date of hearing. The assessment shall be done as per guidelines provided in Annexure-7, appended to the Code. The assessment shall be done as per guidelines provided in Annexure-7, appended to the Code. (ii) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the Licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. (c ) Hearing and Final Assessment.-(i) On the date of hearing, the Assessing Officer shall hear to the person in occupation or possession or in-charge of the place or premises. The Assessing Officer shall give due consideration to the facts submitted by such person and pass, within 7 working days, a speaking order as to whether the case of UUE is established or not. The order shall contain the brief of inspection report, submissions made by such person in his written reply and during hearing. (ii) A copy of the order shall be served to such person under proper receipt, and in case of refusal to accept the order or in absence of such person, shall be served on him under Registered Post/Speed Post. The person in occupation or possession or in-charge of the place or premises shall be required to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of final assessment order. (iii) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. (iv) The assessment under (iii) above shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service.” 22. It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions that the inspection and search of any place or premises under the provisions of the Act and the Code are to be made by the Assessing Officer who shall prepare the report which must clearly indicate whether or not conclusive evidence substantiating the fact that unauthorized use of electricity was found, reflecting the details of such evidence in his report. The report itself is required to be signed by each member of the inspection team and handed over to the person in occupation or possession or in-charge of the place or premises at site under proper receipt and in case of refusal by such person or his representative to accept or give a receipt, a copy of the inspection report is to be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and may be photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to such person under Registered post/Speed post on the day or the next day of the inspection. 23. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Assistant Electrical Engineer has been designated as the Assessing Officer which has not been denied by the respondents. It is also evident from the inspection report dated 6.8.2010 that on that day it has not been signed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer rather he has signed the report on 9.8.2010 which clearly shows that the inspection has not been made or the report prepared by the Assistant Electrical Engineer. I further find that while the report makes a bald statement that the consumer was found utilizing energy in commercial premises but no details of the evidence substantiating the said fact is to be found in the report. 24. In any view of the matter, it is evident that in the present matter neither the inspection has been carried out in terms of the statutory provisions of the Electricity Supply Code nor is it the Assessing Officer who has made the provisional assessment. 25. When statute requires an action to be performed in a particular manner then it has to be performed in that very manner, as laid down in a long line of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. Failure to do so would make the action of the concerned authorities illegal and without jurisdiction. 26. It is thus evident that the entire proceedings in the present matter are on the basis of an inspection not made by the Assessing Officer in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Code and thus every subsequent action of the respondents would be without jurisdiction, being based upon an illegal inspection and illegal inspection report. 27. 26. It is thus evident that the entire proceedings in the present matter are on the basis of an inspection not made by the Assessing Officer in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Code and thus every subsequent action of the respondents would be without jurisdiction, being based upon an illegal inspection and illegal inspection report. 27. In view of the aforesaid I see no reason to go into the issue of the calculation made in the quantum of penal bill, provisional or final, by the respondents. 28. The entire action of the respondents starting with the inspection report dated 6.8.2010 leading up to the final order of assessment dated 30.3.3011 are quashed and the writ application is, accordingly, allowed. 29. The respondents are directed to raise the bills for the unpaid period on the basis of domestic supply after adjusting the amounts already paid.