ORDER 12.11.2015Heard Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Licensee assailing the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the appellate authority-cum-S.E.-cum-Electrical Inspector, Rourkela in Case No. A.F.O. No. 15 of 2013 directing the consumer to pay the over drawal penalty as demanded by the authority after adjusting penalty charges already paid without making any assessment under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has raised various questions in Clause (c) to Clause (e) of paragraph-3 of his written statement filed before the appellate authority, the same have not been taken into consideration and more specifically it is urged that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the judgments Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012)2 SCC 108 and Executive Engineer (Electrical) Central Electrical Division, NESCO, Balasore v. Appellate Authority-cum-Dy. Electrical Inspector (T & D) Balasore and another (W.P(C) No. 972/2012 disposed of on 17.05.2013) referred to in written statement. The appellate authority without applying his mind has passed the order impugned. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the appellate authority-cum-S.E. cum Electrical Inspector, Rourkela in Case No. A.F.O. No. 15 of 2013. Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 strenuously urged that after entering into a contract for supply of power, for excess drawal at a particular point of time the consumer has been charged for the over drawal penalty which it has paid. Once excess amount has been paid as over drawal penalty, the question of further assessment under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act does not arise thereby justifies the order passed by the appellate authority in passing the impugned order in the matter. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly opposite party no. 2 is the consumer of the electricity. It has entered into an agreement for supply of power with a specific contract demand and it has over drawn power at the particular point of time. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly opposite party no. 2 is the consumer of the electricity. It has entered into an agreement for supply of power with a specific contract demand and it has over drawn power at the particular point of time. It has been charged for over drawal penalty and it has paid the over drawal penalty which the authority has acknowledged the same. Once the over drawal penalty is acknowledged by the Licensee/supplier, no further assessment should have done under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act as stated by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. But, learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the said fact to the extent that for admitted over drawal of power, penalty has been imposed for which they have paid the same as per tariff order. So far as assessment under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act is concerned, the authority has power to go such assessment. In any case, the contentions raised before the appellate authority relaying upon the judgments of the apex Court in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) central Electrical Division, NESCO, Balasore (supra) have not been taken into consideration, on perusal of the impugned order, no reason has been assigned by the appellate authority why the questions raised by the petitioners have not been dealt with in the above mentioned context in any manner whatsoever. In that view of the matter, the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the appellate authority-cum-S.E.- cum-Electrical Inspector, Rourkela in Case No. A.F.O. No. 15 of 2013 suffers from illegality and irregularities. Therefore, this Court sets aside the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the appellate authority-cum-S.E.-cum-Electrical Inspector, Rourkela in Case No. A.F.O. No. 15 of 2013 and remits the matter back to the appellate authority to reconsider the same on the pleadings made in the written statement by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.