JUDGMENT : The petitioner-M/s Maa Tara Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd. Is aggrieved of provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015. 2. Prayer seeking restoration of electricity at the petitioner's premises was allowed on certain conditions vide order dated 13.10.2015. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner which was granted electrical connection under HTSS tariff for contract load of 10500 KVA has pleaded that till 22.05.2015 no complaint was lodged against it on allegation of unauthorised use of electricity or theft of electricity. It is running Arc Furnace within its premises which was inspected by the Board's officials on 23.05.2015; the inspection continued till the evening of 24.05.2015. In the inspection report it is recorded that testing meter and the metering unit were found broken, however, stand taken by the petitioner is that seals were broken by the Board's officials. The inspection report records that it was a case of theft of electricity for which a First Information Report under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 shall be lodged. On the basis of this inspection report a First Information Report was lodged on 24.05.2015 and a provisional assessment order was passed on 22.06.2015. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 which has been issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 about one month after inspection of the petitioner's premises indicates that the respondents themselves do not treat the instant case as a case of theft of electricity and this conclusion stands corroborated from the fact that a final form has been submitted by the police on 30.09.2016 on the ground of “mistake of fact”. Another plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisional assessment order is illegal and arbitrary. 5. The learned Advocate-General, however, submits that whether this is a case of theft or not shall be finally decided by the Special Court which is now seized with the protest petition filed by the informant-Nigam. 6. Contention raised by the respondent-Nigam is that on the basis of final form submitted by the police provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 cannot be quashed. 7. Whether the criminal case lodged against the petitioner would end in the acquittal or conviction of the accused persons is the question which depends on the final decision by the Special Court and this is not an issue which can be decided in the present proceeding. 7. Whether the criminal case lodged against the petitioner would end in the acquittal or conviction of the accused persons is the question which depends on the final decision by the Special Court and this is not an issue which can be decided in the present proceeding. Grievance of the petitioner is against the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 by which the petitioner has been directed to file objection within seven days. This provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 records that it has been issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have not pleaded that a right to object to the provisional assessment as provided under Section 126 is not applicable in this case. For the first time now after this writ petition has been heard on as many as 10 occasions, the learned Advocate-General submits that the provisional assessment dated 22.06.2015 is under 3rd proviso to Section 135 (1-A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and not under Section 126. Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 no doubt there is no provision to permit the consumer to file objection to the provisional assessment issued under 3rd proviso to Section 135, however, by now it is well-settled that any order which affects a person adversely should not be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to such a person [“Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and Another” reported in (2008) 14 SCC 151 ]. Moreover, in face of the written words in the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015, the respondent-Nigam is required to consider objection of the petitioner and pass a final order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is held pre-mature to this extent. Before a final order is passed by the respondent-Nigam on the objection of the petitioner to the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015, the petitioner has no occasion to approach this court on that count. 9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit its objection to the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 within two weeks and a final order shall be passed on that objection within next four weeks, however, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to challenge that order before the appellate authority under Section 127. 9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit its objection to the provisional assessment order dated 22.06.2015 within two weeks and a final order shall be passed on that objection within next four weeks, however, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to challenge that order before the appellate authority under Section 127. Payments made by the petitioner pursuant to interim order dated 13.10.2015 shall be adjusted against the arrears of electricity bills and/or future bills. 10. Now, on the speedy disposal of cases of theft of electricity, in view of supplementary affidavit dated 01.08.2018 filed on behalf of the respondent-Nigam it is expected that necessary circular shall be issued by the Managing-Director directing the concerned officials of the Area Office to appear in the Special Courts on each and every date of hearing and steps such as filing of protest-cum-complaint petition must be taken within three months of filing of final form. The Managing-Director shall review quarterly progress in all the cases. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.