JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing of letter dated 10.10.2006 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4 whereby he rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the provisional bill dated 14.2.2006. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the subsequent order dated 12.09.2007 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of Respondent No. 4 has been dismissed. Petitioner further prayed for quashing of provisional bill dated 14.2.2006 raised under Clause 16.9(A) of 1993 tariff on the basis of inspection report dated 13.2.2006. Petitioner further prayed that the amount of Rs. 40,02,405/- deposited by it, on the basis of provisional bill dated 14.2.2006 be refunded and/or adjusted. 2. Petitioner's case in brief is that an inspection conducted by the Officers of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 13.2.2006 and it was found that the meter installed in the petitioner's premises has been tempered. It is stated that it is evident from inspection report that body seal, terminal seal bit, optical seal bit, MDI seal bit etc are O.K. but in spite of that in the said report, respondents alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of electrical energy. It is stated that on the basis of inspection report, a provisional bill issued on 14.4.2006, under Clause 16.9 of 1993 tariff, to the tune of Rs. 40,02,405/-. It is then stated that the petitioner under coercion and to save its electrical connection, paid aforesaid bill on 15.2.2006 vide money receipt no. 993890. It is stated that before issuing the provisional bill, no proceeding initiated under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that the provisional bill issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner filed its objection under section 126 of the Electricity Act against the bill dated 14.2.2006, which was dismissed by the Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10.10.2006, though he has no jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid objection. It is further stated that against the order dated 10.10.2006, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad vide his order dated 12.09.2007, though he is not the appellate authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 10.10.2006 and order dated 12.09.2007 are without jurisdiction. It is further stated that against the order dated 10.10.2006, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad vide his order dated 12.09.2007, though he is not the appellate authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 10.10.2006 and order dated 12.09.2007 are without jurisdiction. It is further stated that against the order passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 petitioner filed an application before the Vidut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2008. Against that order, petitioner filed appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman which was also dismissed. Thus, present writ application filed. 3. It is submitted by Sri D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the notification of the Government of Jharkhad, dated 26.08.2004, Electrical Executive Engineer of the concerned Division has power to make final assessment under section 126 of the Electricity Act and Chief Electrical Engineer-cum-Chief Electrical Inspector, Department of Energy will be the appellate authority under section 127 of the said Act. It is submitted that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction to entertain appeal and objection respectively. Thus, the order passed by them is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Respondent Board/Company is liable to refund the amount i.e. Rs. 40,02,405/- which was deposited by the petitioner under coercion. 4. On the other hand, Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company submits that petitioner has accepted the provisional bill issued on the basis of inspection dated 13.02.2006 and he paid the said bill on 15.02.2006. Thus, he waived the right to file any objection against the provisional assessment. It is submitted that from the perusal of Annexure-3, it is clear that petitioner himself has filed objection before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 4) and the said representation was rejected by him by Annexure-4. He further submits that Annexure-6 shows that petitioner himself filed appeal before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of Jharkhand State Electricity Board, which was dismissed by him on 12.09.2007. Under the said circumstance, now petitioner cannot contend that respondent no. 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, he submits that this writ application has no merit, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Under the said circumstance, now petitioner cannot contend that respondent no. 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, he submits that this writ application has no merit, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is admitted by the petitioner that on 13.02.2006, an inspection conducted in the premises of petitioner and on the basis of said inspection, a provisional bill raised and served upon the petitioner on 14.02.2006. Petitioner further admitted that he deposited the amount raised in the provisional bill vide receipt no. 993890 dated 15.02.2006. However, petitioner states that the aforesaid deposit made by it under coercion and to save its electrical connection. 6. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 runs as follows:- "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 objection, 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. (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 or services specified in sub-section (5)." From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that if the assessing officer on inspection, has found that the consumer indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess the electricity charges, payable by the consumer. Thereafter he will serve the order of provisional assessment to the consumer. Sub-section 3 of section 126 provides that the consumer shall be entitled to file objection against the provisional assessment and if such objection is filed, the Assessing Authority shall dispose of the same within 30 days from the date of service of such provisional assessment. Sub section 4 of section 126 provides that on service of provisional assessment order, the consumer may accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order. Thus, from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that after the service of provisional assessment order or bill, the consumer has two options. The first option provided under sub-section 3 for filing objection before the Assessing Authority, whereas the second option is to accept the provisional assessment order or bill and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of provisional assessment bill. It appears from the averments made in the writ application that the petitioner, after receiving the provisional bill dated 4.2.2006 has accepted the same and deposited the assessed amount on 15.02.2006 vide receipt no. 993890. Under the said circumstance, petitioner has elected to accept the provisional assessment order as per the provision contained under sub-section 4 of section 126 of the Electricity Act. 7. 993890. Under the said circumstance, petitioner has elected to accept the provisional assessment order as per the provision contained under sub-section 4 of section 126 of the Electricity Act. 7. It is well settled that if a party have two inconsistent or alternative option and he is require to choose either of the options and he chosen one of them then later on he cannot change his stand to suit his convenience. 8. In C. Beepathuma and Others vs. Velasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and Others, AIR 1965 SC 241 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the principle in White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity Vol. 18th Edn. at page 444 and states:- "Election is the obligation imposed upon a party by Courts of equity to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases where there is clear intention of the person from whom he derives one that he should not enjoy both. That he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument." 9. In New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. vs. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 537 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is a fundamental principle of general application that if a person of his own accord, accepts a contract on certain terms and works out the contract, he cannot be allowed to adhere to and abide by some of the terms of the contract which proved advantageous to him and repudiate the other terms of the same contract which might be disadvantageous to him. 10. In Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Golden Chariot Airport and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 422 , at paragraph no. 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "45. The common law doctrine prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law of estoppel and well established in our jurisprudence also. 10. In Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Golden Chariot Airport and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 422 , at paragraph no. 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "45. The common law doctrine prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law of estoppel and well established in our jurisprudence also. The doctrine of election was discussed by Lord Blackburn in the decision of the House of Lords in Scarf V. Jardine wherein the learned Lord formulated:- "A party in his own mind has thought that he would choose one of two remedies, even though he has written it down on a memorandum or has indicated it in some other way, that alone will not bind him; but so soon as he has not only determined to follow one of his remedies but has communicated it to the other side in such a way as to lead the opposite party to believe that he has made that choice, he has completed his election and can go no further and whether he intended it or not, if he has done an unequivocal act the fact of his having done that unequivocal act to the knowledge of the persons concerned is an election." 11. Thus, doctrine of election applicable in the facts of this case. Therefore, after accepting the provisional assessment bill and paying the same within seven days from the date of service of provisional assessment bill, it is not open for the petitioner to change its stand and file objection as provided under sub section 3 of section 126 of the Electricity Act. Thus, the subsequent objection filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 is not maintainable and hence, the Respondent No. 4 committed illegality by entertaining the same on merit. Likewise, the petitioner has no right to appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 4. 12. It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited the said amount on coercion and just to save its electrical connection. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, does not inspire confidence. From perusal of Annexure-2, the provisional energy bill, it is clear that in the said bill, due date of payment has not been mentioned. Thus, the question of levy on delayed payment surcharge does not arise. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, does not inspire confidence. From perusal of Annexure-2, the provisional energy bill, it is clear that in the said bill, due date of payment has not been mentioned. Thus, the question of levy on delayed payment surcharge does not arise. There is nothing in Annexure-2 to show that petitioner was directed to pay the amount immediately otherwise his electrical connection will be disconnected. Thus, the statement of the petitioner that it paid the said amount on coercion and with a view to save its electrical connection, is far from truth. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of judgment reported in 2012 (4) SCC 307 , 2003 (7) SCC 418 , 2004 (3) SCC 1 , 2013 (10) SCC 136 , 2009 (7) SCC 104 and 1993 (2) SCC 507 , an order which lack inherent jurisdiction would be nullity and thus the procedural law of waiver and estoppel would have no application in such situation. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. In the entire writ application, petitioner has not stated that the inspection and provisional bill as contained in Annexure-2, is without jurisdiction. In the said circumstance, the aforesaid decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 14. The objection filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3, in my view, is illegal for another reason. From perusal of section 126(3), it is clear that the consumer is required to file objection with the Assessing Authority after service of provisional assessment order/bill and the Assessing Authority is required to dispose of the same within 30 days from the day of service of the provisional assessment order/bill. Thus, the outer limit of disposal of objection has been fixed by the Act i.e. within 30 days from the date of service of provisional assessment order/bill. In that view of the matter, it is incumbent for the consumer to file his objection after receiving the provisional assessment order/bill promptly i.e. much before 30 days from the date of service of assessment order, so that a reasonable time can be given to the Assessing Authority to hear the consumer and pass order within 30 days as required under section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. 15. 15. In the instant case, petitioner admits that the said bill was issued and received by him on 14.02.2006 and petitioner deposited the amount on 15.02.2006. From perusal of Annexure-3, I find that the said objection has been received in the office of Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad on 17.05.2006 i.e. after more than three months. Thus, on the ground of delay also, the said objection is liable to be rejected. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.