ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Petitioner's grievance is that on 25.09.2017 the electricity supply at its premises has been illegally disconnected and on an allegation of theft of electricity First Information Report vide Chakulia P.S. Case No. 29 of 2017 has been lodged for the offence under sections 379, 420 and 427 I.P.C and sections 135/137/138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner-M/s Shanker Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was granted HTSS connection with sanctioned contract load of 2000 KVA and the connection was energized on 15.12.2006. On 26.05.2017, a new metering unit was installed at the petitioner's premises. When the respondents' officials visited the petitioner's premises on 25.09.2017 they allegedly found CT wire of "Y" phase to check-metering unit severed and pinhole in CT wire of 'R' and 'B' phase punctured. Inside the metering room, it is alleged welding over metallic sheet and paper seal both were found damaged. On these allegations, a First Information Report was lodged on 26.09.2017. A provisional assessment dated 27.09.2017 under second proviso to Section 135 (1-A) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Clause 11.9 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations was served upon the petitioner. 3. Sri Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that leaving aside merits of the matter, apparently provisional assessment dated 27.09.2017 is illegal, inasmuch as, the alleged period of theft has been counted from 26.05.2017 to 26.09.2017, whereas the respondents' own document would disclose that meter reading at the petitioner's premises was taken on 04.09.2017, and on that day nothing wrong or unusual was found. It is further contended that dehorse the method of calculation for provisional assessment under the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2015, the respondent-Nigam has multiplied the total unit of alleged theft by 2. In the above facts, contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the mandate under section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is sought to be frustrated by issuing arbitrary assessment order. The learned Senior counsel refers to the order passed in M/s Gajanan Ferro Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited in W.P.(C) No. 4097 of 2017. 4. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Nigam seeks four weeks time for filing counter-affidavit. On merits, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Nigam supports the assessment order contending that this is in consonance with the practice adopted by the Nigam. 5. 4. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Nigam seeks four weeks time for filing counter-affidavit. On merits, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Nigam supports the assessment order contending that this is in consonance with the practice adopted by the Nigam. 5. It appears that an identical plea was raised in M/s Gajanan Ferro Pvt. Ltd. Case wherein this Court has observed as under: "Without expressing any final opinion at this stage on the issues raised on behalf of the rival parties, it needs to be mentioned that the inspection report dated 09.07.2017 refers to MRI report which disclosed low voltage from 19.06.2017 whereas, the provisional assessment has been made from 31.05.2017. Prima-facie, on this count the provisional assessment appears to be erroneous. In so far as the contention importing provision for assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act to the cases of theft under Section 135 of Electricity Act is concerned, suffice would be to indicate that Annexure 19 does not indicate that the provisional assessment shall be twice the units assessed for the period, as provided under the Regulations." 6. In the present case the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is on facts. Whether on 04.09.2017 theft of electricity by the petitioner was detected or not, or whether it could have been detected or not, are the issues which cannot be decided at this stage. Insofar as the errors in provisional assessment is concerned, it would serve the interest of justice if the observation made in M/s Gajanan Ferro Pvt. Ltd. Case is reiterated in this case also. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered that electricity connection at the petitioner's premises shall be restored within 24 hours of deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 99,26,285/- as a condition for restoration of electricity connection. The balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner in equal instalments, spread over 4 months. Needless to clarify that the provisional assessment shall remain tentative, subject to final calculation. 8. Post the matter along with W.P.(C) Nos. 6476 of 2016 and 4097 of 2017.