JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other order quashing the order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi (exercising the powers of Appellate Authority), in an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereby the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant and to remand the case back to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Authority. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is an Undertaking of Government of India and was the consumer of the respondent-Board for the consumption of electricity. The petitioner applied to the respondents for the supply of electricity for the Project and Township, which includes residential as well as official colony at Sainj, District Kullu, H.P, and initially the petitioner applied for a load of 403.82 KW in the year, 2002. 3. The respondent-Company called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.404025/- as security deposit, which, as per the petitioner, was deposited on 07.3.2002. 4. It has been averred that the petitioner further applied for increase of load from the existing load of 403.82KW to 2539.85 KW vide an application in December, 2007. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 20.3.2008, directed the appellant to deposit security on account of applied enhanced load to the tune of Rs.5,56,000/- which was also deposited on 24.3.2008. The petitioner received a notice on 10.6.2008 in which it was alleged that on the inspection of Sainj Township area, the connected load was found to be 1118.26 KW against the sanctioned load of 403.82 KW and demanded double amount of the demand charges from March, 2007 to February, 2008 to the tune of Rs.12,56,500/- and double the amount of energy charges for the same period to the tune of Rs.10,36,344/- totaling Rs.22,92,844/- , which was also asked to be deposited. 5. It has further been averred that on receipt of the notice, the appellant submitted a reply and that during the time of inspection, most of the residential premises had fallen vacant and no electricity connection to those premises have been provided. 5. It has further been averred that on receipt of the notice, the appellant submitted a reply and that during the time of inspection, most of the residential premises had fallen vacant and no electricity connection to those premises have been provided. It has also been averred that, in case, there was an increase in load, it would result in increase of the maximum demand, which would have been recorded in Meter Reading Instrument (hereinafter referred to be as MRI). It has also been averred that in case, there was an increase in the load during the last one year, the MRI would have immediately recorded the increase in maximum demand exceeded the contract demand, which was to be 80% of the connected load (taking 0.9 power factor), would have been immediately reflected in the MRI and consequently contract demand violation charge (CDVC) would have been reflected in monthly electricity bills. It is also averred that no such charges have ever been levied by the respondents in monthly electricity bills during the relevant tenure. It has been alleged that respondent No.2 vide communication dated 24.6.2008 observed that the alleged violation had already been established during the visit of Addl. Superintending Engineer, Shimla. The electricity bill was communicated along with the said communication directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.34,83,265/-. As the same was demanded without any basis, the order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, which was exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.155 of 2011, which was adjourned from time to time. 6. On 27.6.2013, the Appellate Authority could not hold the Court and the case was adjourned. The appeal was taken up without any prior notice or any intimation to the appellant or its learned counsel, on 10.12.2013 and the learned Court on its own, without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, heard and considered the appeal. The petitioner came to know about the order dated 10.12.2013, whereby the appeal had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It has further been averred that the petitioner also enquired from his counsel in this regard, who was not at all aware of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. The petitioner came to know about the order dated 10.12.2013, whereby the appeal had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It has further been averred that the petitioner also enquired from his counsel in this regard, who was not at all aware of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. In view of the above stated position, this Court finds that no notice of the next date was either given by the Appellate Authority to the petitioner or to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the petition was heard on 10.12.2013 without any prior notice or intimation of the date either to the appellant or to the learned counsel, the appeal was decided without hearing the petitioner. 8. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing the reply and had denied the contents of the writ petition and had averred that the petitioner had applied for increasing load from existing load of 403.82 KW to 2539.85 KW vide application in December, 2007, which was under sanctioning process, but the petitioner had connected additional load of 1118 KW above the sanctioned load of 403.82 KW unauthorizedly before it was sanctioned by the competent Authority. 9. However, the respondents have admitted that on 27.9.2013, the case was not taken up due to the administrative reasons, as the Presiding Officer could not hold the Court at Mandi, but it is averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case has been adjourned intentionally and deliberately. The learned lower Appellate Court passed the following order: ?Mandi 27.09.2013 “Due to administrative reasons, Ld. P.O. could not hold Court at Mandi today and as per his directions, this case is fixed on 25.10.2013 for the same purpose for which it was listed for today. Parties have been informed accordingly today by pasting a notice on the notice board of this court room.” N.T. (Peshi) to Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi.? 10. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner denying the contents of the reply and reiterated the averments as made in the writ petition. It is further averred that it is for the respondent to intimate timely with regard to the increase/decrease of the maximum demand, as recorded by the Meter Reader Instrument (MRI) during the relevant period and held that reading be produced on record. It would have been clear that there was no unauthorized consumption of the electricity by the petitioner. It is further averred that it is for the respondent to intimate timely with regard to the increase/decrease of the maximum demand, as recorded by the Meter Reader Instrument (MRI) during the relevant period and held that reading be produced on record. It would have been clear that there was no unauthorized consumption of the electricity by the petitioner. It is further averred that the date was never intimated by the Appellate Authority either to the petitioner or to their learned counsel, it was the duty of the Court to communicate next date when the Court did not assemble. 11. Thereafter, on 25.10.2013, the Divisional Commissioner, passed the following order : ?Mandi 25.10.2013 Case was called, no one became present on behalf of the appellant. Last opportunity was granted. Now, the case be listed for 12.11.2013. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi.” 12. On 12.11.2013, none was present for the petitioner, but the respondent was represented by an Advocate and the case was listed for orders on 10.12.2013, when the appeal was dismissed. 13. To appreciate the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record of this case. 14. From this, it is clear that the notice was issued to the parties, on 25.10.2013 but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was served thereafter or the petitioner had appeared in the Court on the next date, when the Appellate Authority had ordered the parties to appear in the Court on 25.10.2013, as the case had been adjourned for that day on 27.9.2013, when the Court has not assembled. So, it is clear that the appeal has been disposed of without serving the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Authority and so the same is decided without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Authority. So, this is a fit case where the writ petition is required to be allowed directing the Appellate Authority to pass a detailed and speaking order. The order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure-P-5) passed in Case No.155/2011, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Electricity Act, 2003, is quashed and set aside. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. The order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure-P-5) passed in Case No.155/2011, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Electricity Act, 2003, is quashed and set aside. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. However, parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Electricity Act, 2003,on 22.8.2016. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Records be also sent forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for further compliance.