JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the final assessment order dated 16 December 2011 on the file of Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, Puducherry, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay the assessment charges on account of the alleged unauthorised use of electricity. The facts: 2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industry functioning at Karaikal. The Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry has sanctioned High Tension Service Connection to the petitioner vide H.T.S.C.No.721 at R.S.No.83/1 Nagaore Main Road, Melavanjore, T.R. Pattinam, Karaikal. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon and it was established way back in the year 1999. 3. The Electricity Department has provided an electronic meter to record the consumption. The Meter is stated to be a tamper proof one and no pilferage or theft of energy or misuse of power can be done without being recorded in the meter. The Junior Engineer attached to T.R. Pattinam Electricity Circle used to take meter readings every month through a common meter reading instrument by downloading the readings stored in the meter. The datas like billing date, load survey data, etc., would be recorded. It would also record day, time and number of tampers in the service connection. Therefore, it would be impossible to indulge in unauthorised use of electricity through the electronic meter. 4. While the matters stood thus, the Executive Engineer, Karaikal along with the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer inspected the service connection of the petitioner at about 11.40 a.m. on 9 November 2011 alleging unauthorised use of electricity. The Officers inspected the electronic meter and alleged that the petitioner indulged in tampering with the meter. Thereafter, the respondent in his capacity as Assessing Officer issued a provisional assessment notice stating that the petitioner indulged in unauthorised use of electricity and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.2,44,94,215/- within a period of seven days. The petitioner was given time till 22 November 2011 to submit the reply in writing. Even though the petitioner submitted its reply on 17 November 2011 itself disputing the claim made by the inspecting team, the respondent proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in the presence of the investigating officials without giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit their response. Even though the petitioner submitted its reply on 17 November 2011 itself disputing the claim made by the inspecting team, the respondent proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in the presence of the investigating officials without giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit their response. Before the Assessing Authority, the petitioner submitted that the earlier meter reading taken by the Junior Engineer would prove that there was no such unauthorised use of electricity for the prior period and therefore there was no basis in arriving at a conclusion that the consumer indulged in unfair practice in relation to electricity. However, without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, the respondent passed a final assessment order on 16 December 2011 directing payment of a sum of Rs.2,36,10,548/- within a period of fifteen days, failing which, it was indicated that the service would be disconnected without further notice. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The Superintending Engineer No.II, Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the petitioner. According to the respondent, during the course of inspection, it was found that the green coloured, serial numbered, poly carbonate security seals provided by the HT metering section, on the secondary terminal cover of the metering cubicle equipment, which was part of metering arrangement, had been replaced by a similar seal, but with a different serial number. The seals provided by the HT metering section on 10 July 2008 and duly acknowledged by the consumer, were 0006556 and 0006554 whereas, at the time of inspection, the numbers found on the seals were 0007893 and 0007898. According to the respondent, this clearly indicates that the consumer had tampered with the seals and unauthorisedly replaced them with spurious one. Based on the inspection report dated 8 November 2011, the jurisdictional Executive Engineer inspected the petitioner industry on 9 November 2011 and confirmed that the seals had been replaced. The petitioner was given a copy of the reports dated 8 November 2011 and 9 November 2011. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 10 November 2011. The contentions raised by the petitioner were taken note of and ultimately the final assessment order was passed. The petitioner was given a copy of the reports dated 8 November 2011 and 9 November 2011. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 10 November 2011. The contentions raised by the petitioner were taken note of and ultimately the final assessment order was passed. According to the respondent, while passing the impugned final assessment order, principles of natural justice were followed and as such the order is not liable to be set aside. The respondent further contended that originally, there was no appellate authority to file an appeal against the final order passed by the Assessing Authority. Subsequently, the Government constituted an appellate authority vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 18 May 2012 and as such the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate authority. Summary of Submissions: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there were no complaints against the petitioner during the time of taking down the meter reading by the Junior Engineer every month. It is not possible to undertake unauthorised use of electricity through the electronic meter. The meter would show the acts of tampering and as such it would be possible for the officer to detect theft of electricity. According to the learned counsel, the authority, who passed the impugned order was not the Officer, who detected the alleged violation and as such, the respondent has no authority to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was denied of an opportunity to cross examine the inspecting officials and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The learned Government Advocate, Puducherry appearing on behalf of the Superintending Engineer submitted that the petitioner fraudulently replaced the meter and the same is evident from the seals attached to the meter. The petitioner had tampered with the seals and unauthorisedly replaced the same with spurious one. The inspection conducted on 8 November, 2011 revealed this gross violation. The Executive Engineer once again inspected the premises on 9 November 2011 and confirmed the factum of unauthorised replacement of meter and tampering with the seals. According to the learned Government Advocate sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit their response before passing the final assessment order. It was also contended that the Government have already notified the appellate authority and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the learned Government Advocate sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit their response before passing the final assessment order. It was also contended that the Government have already notified the appellate authority and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. Analysis - Facts: 8. The petitioner is a H.T. Service Consumer and is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon. The petitioner was sanctioned 500 KVA way back in the year 1999. The Electricity Department for the purpose of noting the consumption of electricity provided an electronic meter to the petitioner with due serial number and fitted it with poly carbonate security seals. The Antitheft squad constituted by the Electricity Department inspected the premises of the petitioner on 8 November 2011. The team found that the petitioner had tampered with the seals and unuthorisedly replaced it with spurious one. The matter was reported to the jurisdictional Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer visited the premises on 9 November 2011 and confirmed that the seals had been replaced. The report submitted by the Executive Engineer before the respondent made the department to initiate statutory proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued with a notice calling upon them to show cause as to why the provisional order should not be made absolute. The petitioner in its reply denied the allegations and maintained that it is not possible to indulge in theft of electricity in view of the nature of the meter provided by the respondent. However, disregarding those objections, the respondent confirmed the demand. 9. This writ petition raises two basic issues, the first being the authority of the respondent to pass orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the other regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on account of alternative remedy. The statutory framework: 10. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to overcome the shortcomings of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The statutory framework: 10. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to overcome the shortcomings of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The need for harmonising and rationalising the provisions of the earlier statutes and to bring stringent provisions to curtail the practice of unauthorised use of electricity and to evolve a machinery for assessing electricity charges for such unauthorised use and for taking penal action on those who indulged in theft of electricity and to strike a balance between the economic priority and public purpose, the Electricity Bill 2001 was introduced and after holding debates at various levels, The Electricity Act, 2003 was passed by the parliament. The Electricity Act, 2003 made substantial changes and provided for private sector participation, private transmission licences for rural and remote areas, constitution of Regulatory Commissions, Appellate Tribunal and provisions relating to theft of electricity. Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for Investigation and Enforcement. Section 126 deals with inspection of premises and equipments and to detect the unauthorised use of electricity and for assessment of electricity charges for such unauthorised use. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 126 defines the term "unauthorised use of electricity". Section 126(1) provides for issuance of provisional assessment order. Section 126(3) provides for service of provisional assessment order requiring the assessee to submit their explanation. Sub-section (5) of Section 126 provides for issuance of final assessment order. Sub-section (6) of Section 126 indicates the manner of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity. Section 127 provides for appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Section 135 deals with theft of electricity. Legal Analysis: 11. The scope of Section 126 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 . The Supreme Court considered the distinction between Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act and observed that both these provisions operate in separate fields and have no common premise involved. The Supreme Court further observed that the expression "malpractice" has to be construed in its proper perspective. The Supreme Court said: "29. The Supreme Court considered the distinction between Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act and observed that both these provisions operate in separate fields and have no common premise involved. The Supreme Court further observed that the expression "malpractice" has to be construed in its proper perspective. The Supreme Court said: "29. .......Thus, it would be clear that the expression 'unauthorised use of electricity' under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorised use, even in the absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorisation, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under Section 135 of the Act. 30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorised use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act." .............. "It will also be useful to notice that certain malpractices adopted by the consumer for consuming electricity in excess of the contracted load could squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Section 126 of the 2003 Act as it is intended to provide safeguards against pilferage of energy and malpractices by the consumer. "It will also be useful to notice that certain malpractices adopted by the consumer for consuming electricity in excess of the contracted load could squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Section 126 of the 2003 Act as it is intended to provide safeguards against pilferage of energy and malpractices by the consumer. The Regulations framed in exercise of power of subordinate legislation or the terms and conditions imposed in furtherance of statutory provisions have been held to be valid and enforceable. They do not offend the provisions of the 2003 Act. In fact, the power to impose penal charges or disconnect electricity has been held not violative even of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The expression “malpractices” does not find mention in the provisions under the 2003 Act but as a term coined by judicial pronouncements. Thus, the expression “malpractices” has to be construed in its proper perspective and normally may not amount to theft of electricity as contemplated under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. Such acts/malpractices would fall within the mischief of unauthorised use of electricity as stipulated under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. Cases of pilferage of electricity by adopting malpractices which patently may not be a theft would be the cases that would fall within the jurisdiction of the Board in furtherance to the terms and conditions of supply." Issue relating to jurisdiction: 12. Though the petitioner has not raised any ground with regard to the authority of the respondent to issue the provisional order and ultimately the final assessment order, I have entertained the arguments with respect to the said issue as it goes to the root of the matter. 13. Since the objection relating to jurisdiction is raised, it would be beneficial to refer the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Electricity Regulations"). 14. Section 126 of the Electricity Act does not contain a specific provision requiring the inspecting officer himself to pass the order of assessment. In other words, there is nothing indicated in the Act to show that only the Assessing Officer can inspect the premises and he should personally verify as to whether the consumer has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. In other words, there is nothing indicated in the Act to show that only the Assessing Officer can inspect the premises and he should personally verify as to whether the consumer has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. However, the Electricity Regulations contain detailed provisions indicating the manner in which the assessing authority should conduct inspection and as to how orders of provisional assessment and final order of assessment should be issued. Chapter 10 of the Electricity Regulations deals with "Unauthorised use of Electricity and Theft of Electricity". Clause 10.1 deals with instances of unauthorised use of electricity for the purpose of assessment under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Clause 10.2 mandates that the licensee shall publish the list of authorised officers for various areas/divisions/districts to conduct inspections. Clause 10.3 deals with the procedure for inspection and related matters. The Applicable Regulations: 15. Clause 10.3 of the Electricity Regulations reads thus: "Procedure for Inspection, Provisional Assessment, Hearing and Final Assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity. (a) Inspection: (i) Assessing Officer as appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 126 of the Act on receipt of reliable information of unauthorized use of electricity, promptly conduct inspection and search of place or premises where unauthorized use occurred with due diligence. (ii) The Assessing Officer, if required to do so, shall produce his Photo identity card to the Consumer/person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises before entering the premises. Persons accompanying the Assessing Officer shall also carry their photo Identity Cards. (iii) The access to premises shall be in accordance to Regulation 4.12 of these regulations and the occupant of the place or premises of inspection or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the inspection. (iv) An inspection 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 specific irregularity noticed which has led to indulgence of unauthorized use of electricity in the format given in Annexure 4. (v) The report shall clearly indicate whether or not conclusive evidence substantiating the fact that Unauthorized Use of Electricity was found. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report. The report shall mention specific irregularity noticed which has led to indulgence of unauthorized use of electricity in the format given in Annexure 4. (v) The report shall clearly indicate whether or not conclusive evidence substantiating the fact that Unauthorized Use of Electricity was found. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report. The report shall be signed by the Assessing Officer and a copy of the report shall be served on the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises as per regulation 11.3 below. (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. If it is concluded that no unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, no further action shall 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 been taken place in the premises, he will serve a provisional assessment order upon the consumer/person in occupation or in-charge of the premises under proper receipt, giving 7 days time 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 these regulations. (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 served upon him. Such payment made shall be subject to the final order to be passed by the competent authority. (c) Hearing and Final Assessment: (i) On the date of hearing, the Assessing Officer shall hear the consumer/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 Unauthorized Use of Electricity is established or not. The order shall contain the brief of inspection report, submissions made by such person in his written reply and also during hearing. (ii) A copy of the order shall be served to such person under proper acknowledgement and in accordance with regulation 11.3 below. The order shall contain the brief of inspection report, submissions made by such person in his written reply and also during hearing. (ii) A copy of the order shall be served to such person under proper acknowledgement and in accordance with regulation 11.3 below. (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 unauthorised 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 the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service. (d) Appeal to Appellate Authority Against the Final Assessment: (i) Any person aggrieved by a final order made under Regulation 10.3(c) above, may, within thirty (30) days of the said order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority designated by the Commission. (ii) No appeal against the order of assessment under Regulation (i) above shall be entertained unless the Consumer/person deposits one half of the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and encloses documentary proof of such deposit. (iii) The licensee shall not take any action for recovery of assessed amount within the period of thirty (30) days, mentioned in Regulation (d)(i) above, where the assessed consumer/person intimates the Assessing Officer, of his intention of filing an appeal to the appellate authority. (e) Default in Payment of Assessed Amount or Instalments thereof: (i) In case of default in payment of the assessed amount or any instalment granted or agreed by the competent authority, the Licensee shall, after, giving a 15 days notice in writing, disconnect the supply of electricity, by any suitable means such as disconnection from pole/transformer, removing meter, electric line, electric plant and other apparatus, as the case may require. The reconnection shall be carried out as per the provisions of reconnection laid down in Regulation 9.3 of these regulations. The reconnection shall be carried out as per the provisions of reconnection laid down in Regulation 9.3 of these regulations. (ii) When a consumer/person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he shall be liable to pay an amount of interest at the rate of 16% (sixteen percent) per annum with effect from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of order of assessment, in addition to the assessed amount, compounded every six months." 16. A careful reading of clause 10.3 of the Electricity Regulations gives a clear indication that only the Assessing Officer appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 126 of the Act alone is competent to inspect the premises for the purpose of taking action for unauthorised use of electricity and to pass a provisional order and ultimately to make a final order of assessment after hearing the consumer. Therefore, a valid notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 126 of the Electricity Act appointing the Assessing Officer for a particular area or for a particular type of consumer is a mandatory requirement. It is only those officers, who have been specifically empowered by the State Government alone can inspect the premises and to take further action under Section 126 of the Act. 17. The premises in question was inspected by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Kariakal. However, the provisional order was passed only by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, Purducherry. The Superintending Engineer has not inspected the premises. The Executive Engineer was not authorised to inspect the premises for the purpose of taking action under Section 126 of the Electricity Act as on the date on which the subject inspection was conducted. 18. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration in the morning session on 27 November 2012, taking into account the substantial legal issues raised on behalf of the petitioner, I have sought certain information from the learned Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Executive Engineer, who was present in Court submitted that he was not aware as to whether any such notification was issued, empowering the Executive Engineer to conduct inspection. Thereafter, the matter was passed over so as to enable the Executive Engineer to take instructions from the Government. The learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Executive Engineer, who was present in Court submitted that he was not aware as to whether any such notification was issued, empowering the Executive Engineer to conduct inspection. Thereafter, the matter was passed over so as to enable the Executive Engineer to take instructions from the Government. When the matter was taken up during the afternoon session, the Executive Engineer produced the notification issued by the Government of Pondicherry dated 18 May 2012 appointing the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer to function as Assessing Authorities for all LT Service Connections and the Jurisdictional Executive Engineer as the Assessing Authority for HT and EHT Service connections. Similarly, Appellate Authority was also constituted for filing appeal against the final order passed under Section 126 of the Act. 19. The inspection, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition was conducted by the Executive Engineer on 9 November 2011. Admittedly, there was no notification as on the said date authorising the Executive Engineer to function as Assessing Officer and to pass provisional order under Section 126 (1) of the Act and final order under Section 126(5) of the Act. The Electricity Regulation mandates that the inspection should be conducted by the Assessing Officer and he should satisfy that the consumer has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. Even though the Executive Engineer inspected the premises of the petitioner on 9 November 2011, the fact remains that the provisional order was issued only by the Superintending Engineer. Again, it was only the Superintending Engineer, who issued the final assessment order. Since there was no notification as on 9 November 2011 appointing the Executive Engineer, Karaikal as the Authorised Officer under Section 126(6) (a) of the Electricity Act and in the absence of inspection conducted by the respondent before passing the impugned order, the proceedings taken by the respondent against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 20. The respondent in the counter affidavit raised a question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. According to the respondent, the Government had already constituted an appellate authority and as such, the remedy is only to approach the said authority. However, the respondent very conveniently omitted to note that the impugned order in the subject case was issued on 16 December 2011. The writ petition was filed on 3 January 2012. According to the respondent, the Government had already constituted an appellate authority and as such, the remedy is only to approach the said authority. However, the respondent very conveniently omitted to note that the impugned order in the subject case was issued on 16 December 2011. The writ petition was filed on 3 January 2012. Even according to the respondent there was no appellate authority constituted till 18 May 2012. It was only by the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 18 May 2012 appellate authority was constituted. When it is made out that there was no appellate authority empowered to entertain the appeal earlier, the respondent cannot be heard to say that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the final assessment order is not maintainable. 21. The Electricity Act was enacted in the year 2003. Section 126 along with other sections came into force on 10 June 2003 vide S.O.699(E) dated 10 June 2003 and published in the Gazette of India, Extra.,Pt.II, dated 10 June 2003. The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories was notified on 18 May 2010. As stated above, clause 10.3 (a)(i) provides for appointment of Assessing Officer by the appropriate Government. The Electricity Regulations also provide for inspection by the Assessing Officer before taking any action or passing provisional or final order. The Regulation was notified in the Government Gazette. The officials of the Electricity Department, Pondicherry conducted inspection of the premises of the consumer on innumerable occasions resulting in passing series of assessment orders. However, the fact remains that majority of such inspections were conducted only by the lower level officers, who have no authority to inspect the meters and other electricity apparatus and equipments for taking action under Section 126 of the Act. It is the responsibility of the law department to advise the Government with regard to the requirement to issue appropriate notifications for the purpose of conferring authority on the Assessing Officers and to constitute appellate authorities. The Government of Pondicherry took two years to notify the list of assessing authorities and the appellate authorities under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. This slow process on the part of the Government of Puducherry made violators to escape from the clutches of law. The Government of Pondicherry took two years to notify the list of assessing authorities and the appellate authorities under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. This slow process on the part of the Government of Puducherry made violators to escape from the clutches of law. During the course of hearing, it was represented that the officers of the Electricity Department detected several cases of unauthorised use of electricity resulting in passing series of Assessment Orders. In view of this slow action on the part of the concerned departments, to take steps to issue appropriate notification, the consumers who have unauthorisedly extracted energy escaped from liability. 22. During the course of hearing, I was also informed by the learned Government Advocate that these officers were not aware of any such provision regarding appointment of authorised officers and even the order in G.O.Ms.No.12, Industrial Development (Power) Department dated 18 May 2012 was not communicated to them. The Government Order issued by the University of Puducherry was marked to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department. The Superintending Engineer should have forwarded the Government Order and the related notifications to the officers of all the four regions. In any case, since the respondent has not inspected the premises before passing the final order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 23. The next issue is whether liberty should be granted to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, who is the competent authority now to conduct a fresh inspection for issuance of provisional order and for passing final orders pursuant to the earlier inspections conducted on 8 November 2011 and 9 November 2011. 24. There is no dispute that the Executive Engineer conducted the inspection on the subject premises on 9 November 2011. According to the Executive Engineer the metering arrangements have been replaced by similar seals by the petitioner and as such it was a case of tampering with the seals and unauthorised use of electricity. The Government as per order in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 18 May 2012 conferred powers on the jurisdictional Executive Engineer to inspect the premises of the consumers and to assess the unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act. The Executive Engineer, who inspected the premises on 9 November, 2011 was later notified as the assessing officer. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by giving liberty to the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer, who inspected the premises on 9 November, 2011 was later notified as the assessing officer. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by giving liberty to the Executive Engineer. In fact, the learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Executive Engineer, who was present in Court submitted that the Executive Engineer would visit the premises once again and inspect the meter and the apparatus in the presence of the petitioner and only thereafter, action would be taken under Section 126 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view that liberty should be given to the Executive Engineer, Karaikal to take further action pursuant to the inspection conducted by him on 9 November 2011. It is open to the Executive Engineer to inspect the meter and electrical apparatus once again for the purpose of taking further action, if any. In case the Executive Engineer is of the view that the petitioner has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity by spurious means, it is open to him to issue a provisional order to the consumer. The proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2010. 25. In the result, the impugned order dated 16 December, 2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Executive Engineer, Karaikal with liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 26. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.