JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. 1. Petitioner is a proprietor of Sadhbhavna Resort, Chaukori, Berinag. Petitioner is a consumer of Electricity Department. He is paying his electricity bill regularly. On 29.01.2019, the electricity meter of the Sadhbhavna Resort was burnt due to unknown reasons. Petitioner moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer to the effect that on 29.01.2019, meter at Sadhbhawna Resort was burnt due to unknown reasons, therefore, his electricity meter may be changed. On this application, the official of the Electricity Department made an endorsement that electricity meter was found burnt and this information has been given in the office on 01.02.2019. On the same day i.e. on 01.02.2019, Sub Divisional Officer and Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department came to Sadhbhavna Resort and inspected the spot. On inspection, they did not find CT Box Seal, Meter Terminal Seal and Half Seal No. and reported that meter was found burnt. Thereafter, Respondent Department lodged an FIR being FIR No. 5 of 2019 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. On 06.02.2019, petitioner moved an application for re-connection of electricity. The Electricity Department sent an electricity bill with effect from 16.12.2018 to 30.01.2019 in which reading shown as NA. Respondent Department did not connect the electricity and thereafter, on 14.02.2019, raised a demand of Rs. 7,14,271/-. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court. 2. Heard Mr. M. S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. M. S. Rawat, Advocate for Electricity Department and perusal the record. 3. From perusal of documents, it transpires that present case is not a case of electricity theft. It is a case of meter burning and information whereof was given by the petitioner to the Electricity Department immediately. From perusal of the endorsement made on Annexure No. 1 and inspection report Annexure No. 2, it can safely be said that meter of Sadhbhavna Resort was burnt and this fact was within the knowledge of respondent Department. After inspection, Respondent Department did not make any assessment and directly moved to lodge an FIR, treating it as a case of theft, which is not permissible. 4. After inspection, Respondent Department did not make any assessment and directly moved to lodge an FIR, treating it as a case of theft, which is not permissible. 4. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under: “Section 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 unauthorised 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 or 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 serve 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 unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised 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 [twice] the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to [twice] 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) “unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity— (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised 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 authorised; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised." 5. As per sub-Section (1) of Section 126 of the Act, if Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that a consumer 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. 6. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 126, provisional assessment shall be served upon the consumer or any person benefited by such unauthorized use. 7. From the above discussion, it can safely be said that present case is not a case of “electricity theft", therefore, Respondent Department should comply with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned recovery notice dated 14.02.2019 is set aside. Respondent Department is directed to proceed against the petitioner, if they so desire, in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act.