JUDGMENT : Chander Bhushan Barowalia, Judge. The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner - Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, a statutory authority against the respondent No.1 for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure P-6 passed by learned Appellate Authority-respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 had applied and granted load of 750 KW for running the Industrial Unit of the respondent No.1. It is averred that the petitioner is within the rights and powers to inspect the premises at any time. It is averred that the inspection of the Industrial Unit of the respondent No.1 was conducted by the Sr. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB, Parwanoo on 5.9.2008 and on inspection, it was found that the respondent No.1 has indulged in un-authorized use of electricity in as much as the respondent No.1 extended the load of electricity from 750 KW to 1200 KW without prior approval of the authority as mandated by law. As per the petitioner, the provisional assessment on account of un-authorized use of electricity was made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the provision of Section 126 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and a sum of Rs.50,52,723/- was worked out on account of unauthorized use of electricity by the respondent No.1. The said order of provisional assessment together with the calculation sheet, served upon the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 24.9.2008 whereby the respondent No.1 was also required to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount be not debited and realized being the provisional assessment amount. As per the petitioner, respondent No.1 was required to furnish its reply within a period of 15 days from the issue of show cause notice dated 24.9.2008, failing which, it was made clear that in case no reply was received the provisional notice will be made final so the action of the petitioner in making the assessment was legal. As per the petitioner, show cause notice dated 24.9.2008 was issued to respondent No.1 and thereafter respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to provide the documents on the basis of which the assessment was made and the reply was also submitted to the show cause notice on 15.10.2008 by the respondent No.1 denying the fact of unauthorized use of electricity. As per the petitioner, after considering the reply the final assessment order was made. As per the petitioner, after considering the reply the final assessment order was made. 3. As per the petitioner, thereafter respondent No.1 maintained the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner- respondent No.2 being appellate authority for setting aside the order dated 21.10.2008 and respondent No.2 quashed the order which act of respondent No.2 is against the law. 4. Reply to the petition was filed by the respondent No.1 besides taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of the true and material facts. Further, averred that writ petition is not maintainable as on 7.4.2009 assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been reduced by the respondents from Rs.50,52,733/- to Rs.4,14,769/-. On merits, respondent No.1 has denied unauthorized use of electricity by respondent No.1 by extending the load of electricity from 750 KW to 1200 KW without approval as false, baseless and incorrect. As per respondent No.1, the inspection was not done on 5.9.2008, but was done in the month of May, 2008. The case of respondent No.1 is that in the reply to the show cause notice dated 24.9.2008, detailed reply was submitted on 15.10.2008. It is further averred that show cause notice dated 24.9.2008 is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and is violative of the principle of natural justice. The respondent No.1 has further stated that they had asked for the documents on the basis of which the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1, but it is further case of the respondent No.1 that the petitioners had failed to provide the personal hearings and the documents to the respondent No.1 and the order dated 21.10.2008 is in violation of the provision of Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 5. It is further averred that though 50% amount required to be deposited before the Appellate Authority, but the respondent No.1 has sought exemption to deposit the amount. As per respondent No.1, petitioner has neither supplied the documents nor the personal hearing was afforded so the action of the petitioners in raising the demand notice was illegal and required to be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. As per respondent No.1, petitioner has neither supplied the documents nor the personal hearing was afforded so the action of the petitioners in raising the demand notice was illegal and required to be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent No.2 has heard appeal in violation of the provision of law as 50% amount was not deposited and further the respondent No.2 has quashed the assessment order in toto, which is against the law, as it was without jurisdiction. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has argued that the action of the writ petitioner is against the provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act and no personal hearing was afforded to respondent No.1 before passing the order and the action of the petitioner is against law and liable to be set aside and the order passed by respondent No.2 is as per law. He further argued that the respondents have reduced the assessed amount from Rs.50,52,733/- to Rs.4,14,769/-. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in rebuttal that the respondent has failed to prove on record that he has deposited any amount with respect to the said demand notice. 10. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, reference is made to Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as under :- 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 of premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place of 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 objections, 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. (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 the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation- For the purposes of this section- (a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity- (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. 127. Appeal to appellate authority- (1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under section 126 may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. 127. Appeal to appellate authority- (1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under section 126 may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. (2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to (half of the assessed amount) is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed alongwith the appeal. (3) The appellate authority referred to in subsection (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing officer and the appellant. (4) The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final. (5) No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made with the consent of the parties. (6) When a person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount, shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent per annum compounded every six months.” 11. In the present case, the respondent has filed reply to the show cause notice and asked for the documents. It is admitted on record that no personal hearing was given to respondent No.1 before passing the order. In 2009 2 AIR (Kar) (R), 437, titled R. Radhakrishna versus General Manager, BESCOM, it has been held that as per Section 126 (3), it is obligatory on the part of assessing officer to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to such person, before passing the final order of the assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. Admittedly in the present case, in the opportunity of hearing was not granted to respondent No.1 by the petitioner. In 2009 (4) Kar. LJ 268, titled Sri. M.P. Sreenath Gupta s/o Sri M. Prabhkar Gupta versus The Asst. Executive Engineer (E1) Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Admittedly in the present case, in the opportunity of hearing was not granted to respondent No.1 by the petitioner. In 2009 (4) Kar. LJ 268, titled Sri. M.P. Sreenath Gupta s/o Sri M. Prabhkar Gupta versus The Asst. Executive Engineer (E1) Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. TRD W3 Sub Division & Another, it has been held that the provisional assessment order virtually serves as a show cause notice and until and unless the provisional assessment order contains all the details which by itself can sustain the order, even the provisional order will be bad in law. Unless such details are contained in the provisional assessment order there is no way of the consumer responding to it by way of objections. 12. In the present case, as far as the details are concerned, the petitioner has given the details with regard to the unauthorized increase of load from 750 KW to 1200 KW as found on 5.9.2008. The respondent No.2 while passing the order has taken into consideration the exclusive load during the month of April and May, 2008, which has gone 800.85 KW, but the present assessment order passed in the month of August, 2008. The order of respondent No.2 to the effect that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the respondent No.1 before finalizing the assessment order and non supply of the documents is in the violation of principle of natural justice and is required to be upheld being violation of principle of natural justice and against the provision of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, as has been held by Karnatka High Court LJ, 2009 (4), 268, case (supra). However, the order of respondent No.2 quashing the assessment order in toto is not as per law because as per the record, it used 800 KW electricity in the month of May, 2008. The respondent No.1 has made a request to the petitioner to increase the load and in these circumstances, the respondent No.1 was required to make an order of reassessment after following procedure. 13. As far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, it is on record that respondent No.1 has not deposited half of the amount of assessment as required under law on the ground that they had sought exemption from respondent No.1. 13. As far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, it is on record that respondent No.1 has not deposited half of the amount of assessment as required under law on the ground that they had sought exemption from respondent No.1. Though, whether the exemption can be granted or not, is a disputed question, however this aspect was not challenged by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. 14. The net result of the above discussions is that the order of respondent No.1 is required to be modified as under : The assessment order of the petitioner Annexure P-3 dated 21.10.2008, is quashed and set aside, but liberty reserved to the petitioner to issue a fresh assessment order after complying with provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application (s), if any shall also stands disposed of.