Judgment : 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, Learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent had not followed the procedures envisaged under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that an Electrical Engineer in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has to be appointed to inspect the service connection and to conduct an audit to calculate the loss. However, without appointing an Engineer, the Second Respondent himself made an assessment on assumption. 3. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in terms of Section 126 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the presumption in regard to an unauthorised use of electricity can be made only for one year in respect of agricultural service etc., but the Second Respondent presumed for one year and calculated the loss for a sum of Rs.1,90,800/-. 4. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to contend that in view of the Inspection Report dated 13/8/2012, the Second Respondent conducted an inspection in respect of service connection No.1147 which belongs to one Karunakaran in the presence of the Petitioner's son Vedhanayagam and as a representative of Karunakaran, the Petitioner's son was served with the 'Inspection Report' as well as 'Compounding of Offence Notice'. 5. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that it was not open to the Second Respondent to disconnect the service connection No.534 and served a fresh order stating that the service connection number was wrongly quoted. 6. That apart, it is the stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner that the order of the First Respondent passed in the 'Appeal' is nothing but a non-speaking order and the said order did not contain any reason on which the 'Appeal' was rejected. 7. During the last leg of argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously projected the plea that the First Respondent ought to have considered the 'Appeal' independently and that the First Respondent had passed the order in question in a mechanical fashion without ascribing any reasons there for. 8. 7. During the last leg of argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously projected the plea that the First Respondent ought to have considered the 'Appeal' independently and that the First Respondent had passed the order in question in a mechanical fashion without ascribing any reasons there for. 8. It comes to be known that the Petitioner on an earlier occasion filed W.P.(MD) No.16385 of 2012 before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Second Respondent in (“Tamil”) 390/2012, dated 27/11/2012 and to quash the same as an illegal one. 9. On 7/7/2014, in W.P.(MD) No.16385 of 2012, this Court had observed the following:- The petitioner has got free agricultural electricity service connection from the respondents in service Connection No.534 at Esanaikorai Village, Trichirapalli District. On the allegation that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity, which, according to the respondents, was found out on 13/8/2012, the said electricity service connection was disconnected. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.12673 of 2012. By order dated 27/9/2012, this Court issued the following directions:- (i) The respondents are directed to restore the electricity service connection No.534 on payment of 50% of the amount demanded under the provisional assessment order excluding the compounding fee; (ii) The petitioner is directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the provisional assessment proceedings; and (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter after the final assessment order is passed as per the relevant provisions of law. 10. Ultimately, this Court disposed of W.P.(MD) No.16385 of 2012 by observing the following in paragraph 7, which runs as under:- The question, as to whether as against the final order, appeal lies or not, need not be gone into by this Court. If any such appeal has been really filed by the petitioner to the first respondent, it is for the first respondent to decide as to whether the appeal is maintainable and if so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. At any rate, the first respondent should pass order considering the said appeal on merits within a period of four weeks. At any rate, the first respondent should pass order considering the said appeal on merits within a period of four weeks. In my considered opinion, going by the facts of this case and the earlier orders passed and the amount deposited by the petitioner already as per the orders passed by this Court, it would be appropriate to issue a further direction to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity service connection of the petitioner until the appeal is disposed of by the first respondent and after affording a further time of four weeks to pay the amount, if any, from the petitioner thereafter. Accordingly, it is directed. 11. As far as the present Writ Petition (MD) No.17214 of 2014 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that in the impugned order in (“Tamil”) 196/14 dated 17/9/2014, the First Respondent had not taken up the point for consideration as to 'whether an Appeal is maintainable in law', as directed by this Court on 7/7/2014 in W.P.(MD) No.16385 of 2012. However, this Court on going through the entire gamut of the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 passed by the First Respondent is of the earnest opinion that the First Respondent had not touched upon the aspect of maintainability/validity of 'Appeal' and only passed the final order directing the Petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.71,550/- (Rupees Seventy One thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) (after deducting the payments made by the Petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court) within a period of four days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. That apart, the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 of the First Respondent is bereft of qualitative and quantitative reasoning. It is to be pointed out that when an administrative authority or a quasi-judicial authority passes an order in a given case, then there must be at least an outline of process of reasoning by evaluating/discussing the relative merits of the matter in a quantitative and qualitative fashion. An order passed without assigning proper reasons or an order passed bereft of necessary qualitative or quantitative details, then the same is an unfair and unjust one from the point of view of an aggrieved/affected person. However, from the point of view of the authority, who passed the order, the same may be a just and valid one. An order passed without assigning proper reasons or an order passed bereft of necessary qualitative or quantitative details, then the same is an unfair and unjust one from the point of view of an aggrieved/affected person. However, from the point of view of the authority, who passed the order, the same may be a just and valid one. But in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, he is an affected/aggrieved person for the simple reason that the said order smacks of necessary qualitative or quantitative details in the eye of Law. 13. At this stage, at the risk of repetition, this Court more pertinently points out that the First Respondent had not adhered to the direction issued by this Court on 7/7/2014 in W.P.(MD) No.16385 of 2012, wherein the First Respondent was directed to decide whether appeal was maintainable or not? Without adverting to that aspect and dealing with the same, the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 passed by the First Respondent is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law, in the considered opinion of this Court. 14. Added further, the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 passed by the First Respondent bristles with patent infirmities/illegalities in the eye of Law for the simple reason the said order does not discuss/deal with the merits or about the pros and cons of documents submitted by the Petitioner (in all 49 pages as stated by the First Respondent in the impugned order). On these aspects alone, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 passed by the First Respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the First Respondent dated 17/9/2014 is set aside by this Court in furtherance of substantial cause of Justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. 15. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Resultantly, the impugned order made in (“Tamil”) 196/14 dated 17/9/2014 passed by the First Respondent is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons ascribed in the Writ Petition. The entire matter is remitted back to the First Respondent, who is directed to take up the 'Appeal' afresh and to dispose of the same on merits (of course after providing necessary and due opportunities to the concerned parties). The entire matter is remitted back to the First Respondent, who is directed to take up the 'Appeal' afresh and to dispose of the same on merits (of course after providing necessary and due opportunities to the concerned parties). It is made clear that the First Respondent is to decide/determine as to whether the 'Appeal' is maintainable when a fresh order is passed, in the subject matter in question. Further, the First Respondent is directed to pass a reasoned, speaking order in a fair, just, dispassionate and objective manner, uninfluenced and untrammelled with any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Petition. 16. Also that, if the electricity service connection of the Petitioner is disconnected by the Respondents as stated by them in the impugned order dated 17/9/2014 within the time limit of four weeks, for non-payment of outstanding sum of Rs.71,550/- (Rupees Seventy One thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only), then they are directed to restore the Electricity connection to the Petitioner at the cost of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board forthwith, in view of the fact that this Court has allowed the present Writ Petition based on the facts and circumstances which float on the surface. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed.