JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, the learned advocate for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, the learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL, representing all the respondents. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the Laboratory Test Report dated 25.04.2013, letters dated 31.07.2013 and 30.08.2013 and bill dated 30.08.2013, etc. 3. The petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling cement. On 07.01.2011, the respondents had replaced the electric meters with new electronic meters. On 14.03.2013, the MTI Division of respondents visited the premises of the petitioner to replace the damaged CT-PT set with a new one. While replacing the same, they had also replaced the existing meter. In the inspection report, it was observed that the seal of all apparatus including meter cover was intact and that only the CT-PT set was damaged. Later on, the APDCL conducted ex parte laboratory test of the removed meter. The ex parte inspection report contained a remark that "Attempt of tampering the meter by opening the meter cover of the Meter No. ASEG4180 is observed. The above meters has been handed over to the T&C Division, Ulubari, Guwahati-7." Thereafter, on the ground that the meter was running 45% slow, supplementary bill for Rs.1,01,11,146/- was raised upon the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted representations dated 20.05.2013 and 03.06.2013 before the Chairman- cum- Managing Director of APDCL. Consequently, the General Manager (Com- Rev) by letter under Memo dated 31.07.2013 had withdrawn the supplementary bill. Thereafter, by letter dated 30.08.2013, another Supplementary bill for Rs.79,60,603/- was issued upon the petitioner. The respondents had filed their affidavit- in- opposition and by alleging that the petitioner was indulging in meter tampering, had justified the demand raised upon the petitioner. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to various provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules as well as the Terms & Conditions of Supply framed thereunder. It is submitted that the manner in which inspection was carried out was illegal. It is submitted that the testing of meter was done illegally behind the back of the petitioner, which is in contravention of the Terms & Conditions of Supply. It is submitted that the manner in which inspection was carried out was illegal. It is submitted that the testing of meter was done illegally behind the back of the petitioner, which is in contravention of the Terms & Conditions of Supply. It is also submitted that the testing was done at the premises of the meter manufacturer and by their employees, for which the manufacturers report was unreliable as their commercial interest would be directly affected and it was unlikely that a manufacturer of the electricity meter will give adverse report of its own product and in support of this contention, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of M/s. Modern Rice Mill Vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited & Anr., AIR 2012 All 45 : Docid # IndiaLawLib/ 65126. It is also submitted that the first assessment bill dated 27.04.2013 for Rs.1,02,11,146/- as well as the Statement of calculation was not sustainable on facts and in law. It is also submitted that the petitioner had submitted two representations dated 20.05.2013 and 03.06.2013, but the Chairman- cum- Managing Director of the APDCL did not take any initiative to redress the grievance of the petitioner. However, the APDCL having found that their first assessment bill was illegal, had recalled the said bill and without disclosing any reasons issued their second assessment bill dated 30.08.2013 for Rs.79,60,603/- together with a Statement of calculation, which were also not sustainable on facts and in law. It is also submitted that the respondents have been changing their stand from time to time because the respondents had initially proceeded as if the petitioner had committed malpractice and/or theft of electricity, which must be proceeded under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for which separate remedy is envisaged. Later, on the respondents had changed their stand and had proceeded as if there was unauthorised use of electricity, which falls within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for which separate appellate procedure is prescribed. Hence, it is submitted that the only issue required to be decided by this Court is that when meter testing was done without notice to the petitioner as consumer, whether the respondents could have raised supplementary bill and take coercive action against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the only issue required to be decided by this Court is that when meter testing was done without notice to the petitioner as consumer, whether the respondents could have raised supplementary bill and take coercive action against the petitioner. It is submitted that as the action of meter testing was taken without notice to the petitioner, all the actions taken by the respondents are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the inspection and meter- testing, which is the genesis of the action taken, were in contravention of the provisions contained in the Terms & Conditions of Supply, the writ petition be allowed. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, (2013) 8 SCC 491 . 5. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, an inspection was carried out in the industrial unit of the petitioner on 24.07.2014, and once again the electricity meter was found tampered. On the basis of report of mal-practice, a provisional assessment bill for Rs.2,03,13,737/- was raised. This Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. However, this Court had dismissed the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003. The said order was assailed in intra-Court appeal by filing writ appeal and the Division Bench of this Court had remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge to consider the illegality, validity and correctness of the assessment. Aggrieved by the writ appellate order, the respondents herein had filed SLP before the Supreme Court of India. By referring to the copy of order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 8624/2015 (APDCL & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.M. Cement Industries), it is submitted that the Supreme Court of India had restored the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the order of relegating the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal, by providing that if an appeal is filed by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority shall condone the delay and hear the matter on merit. Vs. M/s. S.M. Cement Industries), it is submitted that the Supreme Court of India had restored the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the order of relegating the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal, by providing that if an appeal is filed by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority shall condone the delay and hear the matter on merit. Accordingly, it is submitted that in this matter also, it would meet the ends of justice to relegate the petitioner to move the appellate authority as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 8624/2015 (APDCL & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.M. Cement Industries), which was between the same parties. 6. Having heard both sides, perused the materials available on record. It is seen that from the forwarding letter No. APDCL/AM/ICRA-I/MISC/90 dated 27.04.2013 that the assessment bill dated 27.04.2013 was served on the ground that during change of damaged CT/PT set on 14.03.2013, meter No. ASEG 4180 was replaced by new energy meter No. AS 897243 and that during subsequent testing, the meter was found 45% slow and, as such, a provisional bill compensating the loss was raised. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where assessment bill was issued as per provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Moreover, the respondents had withdrawn the first assessment bill dated 27.04.2013 and the accompanying statement of calculation without disclosing any reasons, and issued their second assessment bill dated 30.08.2013 for Rs.79,60,603/- together with a Statement of calculation. It also appears that against the first assessment bill dated 27.04.2013, the petitioner had preferred 2 (two) representations dated 20.05.2013 and 03.06.2013 before the Chairman- cum- Managing Director, APDCL, which was not responded to. 7. Therefore, having regard to the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 8624/2015 (APDCL & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.M. Cement Industries), this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of approaching the assessing officer as provided under Sub- Section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of this order. Vs. M/s. S.M. Cement Industries), this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of approaching the assessing officer as provided under Sub- Section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of this order. It is further provided that on receipt of such representation, the assessing officer shall not dismiss and/or reject the said representation on technical grounds of not being maintainable under Section 126 of 2003 Act and the said assessing officer shall give an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner and after considering all the defence taken by the petitioner herein, pass a speaking order thereon. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the assessing officer, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as they may be so advised. It is also clarified that this Court has not entered into the merit of the contention raised by both sides and, as such, the assessing officer shall decide the matter without being influenced by this order. 8. The present writ petition was filed on 25.09.2013 and accordingly, it is provided that for the period from 25.09.2013 till the date of disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the assessing authority, no late fee/ interest/ penal charges, etc. shall be levied on any amount found due and recoverable from the petitioner. 9. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.