JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma,J. By way of present petition the petitioners have prayed for following main relief amongst other:- “(a) That writ of certiorari may be issued and Annexure P-5 passed by the ld. appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 below may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Needless to say that the present petitioner No.1 is a creation of statute under the Electricity Act, 1948 and Electricity Act, 2003 and w.e.f. 15th June, 2009 all assets and liabilities of the Board stand vested in State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Sections 131 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. Present petition has been filed by the functionaries of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, duly authorized to file and maintain the present writ petition, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by Appellate Authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi under the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short `Appellate Authority’), whereby order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, HPSEB, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. has been quashed and set aside. 4. It emerges from the pleadings available on the record that respondent No.1, who runs the business in the name of M/s.Sintex Industries Ltd. (Plastic Division), works at Billanwali Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., applied for load of 80.5 KW for running the Industrial Unit of the Company, which was granted by the present petitioners. However, an inspection was carried out by petitioner No.2, Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. on 20.2.2008 and 15.3.2008 and it transpired that respondent No.1 has indulged in unauthorized use of electricity as he, without any valid permit and prior approval, as required under law, from the electricity authority, extended the load of electricity from 255.9 KW to 400 KW. Accordingly, provisional assessment on account of un-authorized use of electricity was made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and a sum of Rs.32,26,278/- was calculated on account of un-authorized use of electricity payable by respondent No.1. Averments contained in the petition suggest that the aforesaid provisional assessment, alongwith calculation sheets, was served upon respondent No.1 vide letter dated 3.4.2008, whereby he was called upon to reply to the show cause notice as to why the aforesaid amount be not realized from him. Averments contained in the petition suggest that the aforesaid provisional assessment, alongwith calculation sheets, was served upon respondent No.1 vide letter dated 3.4.2008, whereby he was called upon to reply to the show cause notice as to why the aforesaid amount be not realized from him. Though respondent No.1 was under obligation to file reply to the aforesaid show cause notice within a stipulated time but, it appears, that no reply whatsoever was filed to the show cause notice. Apart from this, respondent No.1 was at liberty to file objections against the aforesaid order of provisional assessment conducted by the present petitioners. Since no objections were filed against the aforesaid order of provisional assessment, the same attained finality. It emerges from the record that since no reply was received from respondent No.1, final assessment was drawn by the competent authority and order of the same was served upon respondent No.1 vide letter dated 8.9.2008. Perusal of the show cause notice dated 3.4.2008, Annexure P-1, and order dated 8.9.2008, Annexure P-2, suggest that there were specific allegations against respondent No.1 that he has indulged in unauthorized use of the electricity and is liable to make payment amounting to Rs.32,26,278/-. 5. Respondent No.1, instead of filing reply to the order dated 8.9.2009, passed by petitioner No.2, filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority. However, the same was finally decided by the Appellate Authority, who was, at the relevant time, having duel charge of Shimla and Mandi Divisions. Present petitioners filed detailed reply to the aforesaid appeal. Respondent No.2, Appellate Authority, vide impugned order dated 22.5.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, HPSEB, Parwanoo, District Solan, petitioner No.2 herein, whereby respondent No.1 was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.32,26,278/- within a period of one month. 6. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, petitioners approached this Court by way of present petition. 7. Present petitioners sought quashment of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of the documentary evidence made available on the record by the petitioners-authorities. 7. Present petitioners sought quashment of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of the documentary evidence made available on the record by the petitioners-authorities. It has been specifically averred in the grounds of challenge that finding returned by learned Appellate Authority, that no reasonable opportunity was given to respondent No.1 before passing the orders, is not correct, rather, contrary to the documents available on the record. It was specifically pleaded that, it stands proved on record that respondent No.1 has indulged in un-authorised use of electricity as he, without any valid permit or prior approval from the electricity authorities, extended the load of electricity from 255.9 KW to 400 KW. Learned Appellate Authority miserably failed to acknowledge that show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 specifically calling upon him to file reply, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. Since Authority was not satisfied with the reply filed by respondent No.1 to show cause notice issued by it, which was well in its rights to issue final assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 8. Respondent No.1, by way of detailed reply filed in this Court, refuted all the submissions/averments made by the petitioners and supported the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority setting aside the assessment order dated 8.9.2008 and allegations with regard to unauthorized use of electricity were also specifically denied and submitted that load of 80.5 KW, originally granted in favour of respondent No.1 by the petitioners, was never extended. No documents were supplied by the authority despite several requests from where it could be ascertained that on what basis it has been concluded that the respondent has indulged in authorized use of electricity. However, respondent No.1 submitted that they never indulged in any un-authorized use of electricity and final assessment order dated 8.9.2008 was passed by the petitioners without following the principle of natural justice, as such, same was in complete violation of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Since no opportunity of being heard was given to respondent No.1, he was compelled to approach the Appellate Authority under the Act. 9. Since no opportunity of being heard was given to respondent No.1, he was compelled to approach the Appellate Authority under the Act. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Mr.Satyan Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable, at all, in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Vaidya vehemently argued that there was ample material available on record to suggest that before passing final assessment order opportunities were afforded to the respondent No.1 to file reply/objections, if any. He also invited the attention of this Court to show cause notice dated 3.4.2008, Annexure P-1, whereby respondent was to put caveat that he has indulged in using unauthorized electricity, as a result whereof, assessment of quantum of penalty for the period 6.7.2007 to 27.2.2008 has been proposed to be made, which provisionally works out to Rs.32,26,278/-. Whereas, perusal of Annexure P-1 suggests that 15 days time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply to the show cause notice, meaning thereby that the respondent No.1 was always at liberty to file objections, if any, to the provisional assessment carried out by the petitioners. Mr.Vaidya further invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 8.9.2008 to suggest that final assessment under Section 126 of the Act was passed after getting reply, wherein number of documents were enclosed. Hence, the very allegation of respondent No.1 that he was not afforded an opportunity before passing of order dated 8.9.2008 is not correct, rather, the same is contrary to the documents on record. 11. Mr.Vaidya strenuously argued that even the bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, itself suggests that the Appellate Authority while passing final order has failed to take into consideration the material made available on record by the petitioners. Mr.Vaidya forcefully contended that though material available on record clearly establish the guilt of respondent No.1, i.e. unauthorized use of electricity, and the findings returned by the Appellate Authority are bereft of any plausible reasoning. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on the basis of physical inspection report submitted by Superintending Engineer (Operation). Mr.Vaidya forcefully contended that though material available on record clearly establish the guilt of respondent No.1, i.e. unauthorized use of electricity, and the findings returned by the Appellate Authority are bereft of any plausible reasoning. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on the basis of physical inspection report submitted by Superintending Engineer (Operation). Lastly, Mr.Vaidya contended that findings returned by the Appellate Authority that no opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent is also contrary to the record, especially, in view of the fact that proper show cause notice, indicating therein the purpose and assessment, was sent to the respondent specifically calling his reply within a period of 15 days. 12. Mr.Vaidya prayed for quashing of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground that if at all learned Appellate Authority was of the view that, while passing of order dated 8.9.2008 by Sr.Executive Engineer, HPSEB, principles of natural justice were not complied with and respondent was not afforded opportunity of being heard, proper course was to remand the case back to the petitioners-authorities for doing the needful. But in the instant case Appellate Authority has fallen in grave error, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.9.2008, meaning thereby that the entire demand raised by the petitioners has been set aside solely on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to respondent, which is also contrary to the documents on record. 13. Mr.Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondent, supported the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority and stated that no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the respondent by the petitioners before issuing final order dated 8.9.2008. He has specifically refuted the allegation of Mr.Vaidya that he indulged in illegal and unauthorized use of electricity. 14. Mr.Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the decisions of various High Courts in D. Shanthi vs. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu & Another, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 12224, M/s.Mithila Autos vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2015 Supreme(Pat) 318, M/s.Assotech C.P. Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. vs. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Co. 14. Mr.Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the decisions of various High Courts in D. Shanthi vs. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu & Another, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 12224, M/s.Mithila Autos vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2015 Supreme(Pat) 318, M/s.Assotech C.P. Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. vs. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 2807, Mool Chand Saini vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2013 Supreme(All) 233, Sri S.G. Parameshwaraiah vs. The State of Karnataka & Others, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 3836 and Sri.M.P. Sreenath Gupta S/o Sri M.Prabhakar Gupta vs. The Asst.Executive Engineer (EI) Bangalore Electricity Supply Co TRD W3 Sub Division & Another, 2008 Supreme(Kar) 247, and prayed that in these cases demand raised by the Electricity Authorities, under Electricity Act, for illegal and unauthorized use of electricity, was quashed and set aside by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the parties were not afforded opportunity of being heard, but perusal of judgment relied upon by the respondent depicts that though impugned order was quashed but liberty was given to the Electricity Authorities for initiating fresh proceedings, after affording an opportunity of being heard, to pass fresh order. Hence, judgments relied upon by Shri Mahajan is of no help to the respondent. 15. A bare perusal of the facts and circumstances narrated herein above as well as arguments having been made by the counsel representing the parties depicts that show cause notice dated 3.4.2008 was issued by the petitioner pointing therein that respondent has indulged in using unauthorized electricity as a result, whereof petitioner has made provisional assessment of quantum of penalty for the period from 6.7.2007 to 27.2.2008, amounting to Rs.32,26,278/-. He was also given time of 15 days to file reply to the show cause notice. Rather, perusal of order dated 8.9.2008 i.e. final assessment made under Section 126, whereby the respondent was called upon to deposit Rs.32,26,278/-, also suggests that pursuant to the issuance of show cause notice, as referred above, respondent filed a representation. 16. From the aforesaid facts it emerges that show cause notice was issued to the respondent which was duly replied by him. However, facts remains that, whether the reply filed by the respondent was taken into consideration at the time of passing of final order dated 8.9.2008 was required to be looked into by the Appellate Authority envisaged under the Act. From the aforesaid facts it emerges that show cause notice was issued to the respondent which was duly replied by him. However, facts remains that, whether the reply filed by the respondent was taken into consideration at the time of passing of final order dated 8.9.2008 was required to be looked into by the Appellate Authority envisaged under the Act. Though it appears from the pleadings of the petitioners that they had taken into consideration the reply filed by the respondent regarding issuance of order dated 8.9.2008 but admittedly there is no record with regard to personal hearing, if any, given to the respondent at the time of passing of order dated 8.9.2008. However, the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority invoking powers under Section 127 of the Act does not appear to be correct or valid on one account that if the Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the respondent was not afforded opportunity of being heard before issuance of final order dated 8.9.2008, proper course was to remand the case back to the Authority with the direction to decide the same afresh by affording due opportunity of being heard to the respondent. But in the present case, admittedly, Appellate Authority has quashed final order dated 8.9.2008 passed by Sr.Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB, Parwanoo, meaning thereby that the entire demand raised by the petitioners has been declared as null and void. True it is that before passing of order dated 8.9.2008, petitioners were bound to comply with the principle of natural justice, whereby they were under obligation to afford an opportunity of being heard to respondent before passing any final assessment order as has been observed above. Though show cause notice was issued to the respondent and reply was also filed but certainly there is nothing on record which could suggest that at the time of passing of order dated 8.9.2008, parties were heard and some discussions were made on file to reach final decision as has been appended with the order dated 8.9.2008. 17. In view of above, I am in total agreement with the contention raised by Mr.Satyan Vaidya that the order of Appellate Authority dated 22.5.2009 is not correct inasmuch it has quashed the order dated 8.9.2008, passed by Sr.Executive Engineer, whereby demand was raised by way of final assessment calling upon the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.32,26,278/-. 17. In view of above, I am in total agreement with the contention raised by Mr.Satyan Vaidya that the order of Appellate Authority dated 22.5.2009 is not correct inasmuch it has quashed the order dated 8.9.2008, passed by Sr.Executive Engineer, whereby demand was raised by way of final assessment calling upon the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.32,26,278/-. 18. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion and observations made, impugned order dated 22.5.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, is quashed and set aside, but, with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation, this Court deems it proper, at this stage, to direct the petitioners to comply with the principle of natural justice and afford an opportunity of being heard to the respondent before passing final assessment order and thereafter petitioners may raise afresh demand, if required, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. All the interim orders are vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.