ORDER : A.J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is directed against order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2019 in Special Civil Application No.2476 of 2013. 2. Background of facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent No.1 – original petitioner, had a L.T. power connection of 50 KW load under LTP-III tariff bearing Consumer No.12306/00256/8 at Sachin Industrial Estate at Surat. Checking at the premises took place on 07.01.2011 where it was alleged that the respondent No.1 unit was using electricity from industrial connection for equipments of office for commercial purpose. Therefore, when the checking-sheet was prepared, it was asserted that electricity from industrial connection was used for commercial purpose in the office. Pursuant to the said checking-sheet, a supplementary bill was issued by the appellate authority amounting to Rs.4,94,763/-. Against the said bill, a representation was filed on 25.01.2011 wherein the circumstances were projected in detail by respondent No.1. Along with the representation, documentary evidence was also produced. However, the appellate authority did not consider the same and confirmed the said provisional/ supplementary bill, giving a final bill of the said amount. It appears that aggrieved by the said final bill, respondent No.1 herein, preferred a statutory appeal under Section-127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Here the appellate authority considered the case of both sides and an order came to be passed on 29.09.2012 through which the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, respondent No.1 herein has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, through a writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs : “(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or writ, direction or order in the nature of writ writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 29.09.2012 and direct the respondent No.1 to refund Rs.4,94,763.23 to the petitioner. (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the implementation, execution and/or operation of the order dated 29.09.2012 and notice dated 15.02.2011 may be stayed and the respondents may be restrained from disconnecting the connection of the petitioner bearing consumer No.12306/00256/8. (c) Any other appropriate reliefs deemed just and appropriate in the interest of justice may be granted.” 3. (c) Any other appropriate reliefs deemed just and appropriate in the interest of justice may be granted.” 3. After the issuance of the notice, the aforesaid writ petition came for consideration before the Court. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.08.2019 was pleased to consider the case at length and has arrived at a conclusion that a fresh look deserves to be taken at the hands of authority. Resultantly, the petition came to be disposed off remitting it to the stage of the Deputy Executive Engineer, for reconsidering it afresh. The operative portion of the said order contained in paragraph-10 is reproduced hereinafter : “[10] In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the Deputy Executive Engineer was not in conformity with the requirement of Circular dated 20.10.2005 issued by the electric company. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders of the Deputy Executive Engineer and the Electrical Inspector are ordered to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the stage of Deputy Executive Engineer to reconsider the case afresh. The aforesaid exercise to be concluded, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.” 4. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge which is made the subject-matter of present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned counsel for the contesting respondent – Caveator and taken up, with consent, the hearing of the present Letters Patent Appeal finally. 6. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that though the orders passed by both the authorities are concurrent and assigned cogent reasons, there was hardly any circumstance to remit the matter for consideration. It has been categorically submitted that a serious allegation has been established on record by both the authorities concurrently. Respondent No.1 was found utilizing electricity from industrial connection for commercial purpose in the office and that has led to substantial revenue loss to the appellant electricity company. It was also contended that when the checking was conducted, a checking-sheet was prepared in the presence of representatives of the appellant, where this fact was unequivocally established on record. Respondent No.1 was found utilizing electricity from industrial connection for commercial purpose in the office and that has led to substantial revenue loss to the appellant electricity company. It was also contended that when the checking was conducted, a checking-sheet was prepared in the presence of representatives of the appellant, where this fact was unequivocally established on record. When that is so, there is hardly any reason for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellant has further vehemently contended that both the authorities below i.e. the Deputy Executive Engineer as well as the statutory appellate authority have examined the case at length and passed a detailed order after assigning cogent reasons. When that is so, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the view taken by the authority cannot be substituted in the absence of any perversity or material irregularity. Here is a case, where looking at both the orders, every material has been taken care of and analyzed in context of the submissions made by the original petitioner before the authorities. Only thereafter was a detailed order passed. Therefore, the said exercise of power cannot be construed as perverse in any form under any circumstances. When that is so, looking at the limited scope of judicial review, no case could have been accepted by the learned Single Judge. 8. Ms. Bhaya has further contended that if the authority's exercise of jurisdiction is dealt with in such a manner in the absence of any justifiable material, the object of entrustment of power would get frustrated. As a result of this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, since suffering from infirmity, the same deserves to be set aside. It has been further contended that the reasons assigned for remitting the matter to the authority is not sufficient enough to support it. Resultantly, the case has not been made out by the contesting respondent. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel has drawn our attention to some documents contained in the paper-book and then produced on record the original order passed by the authority i.e. Deputy Engineer. This order is also reiterated as having been passed by assigning reasons and by submitting this, a request is repeated to allow the appeal. No further submissions have been made. 9. To meet with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. This order is also reiterated as having been passed by assigning reasons and by submitting this, a request is repeated to allow the appeal. No further submissions have been made. 9. To meet with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 – Caveator has vehemently contended that a detailed hearing has taken place before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has categorically found, on the basis of material on record, that certain issues raised before the authorities have not been gone into properly. This has constrained the learned Single Judge to remanding the matter to the authority. Ms. Vyas has submitted that no prejudice is likely to be caused, since in preferring statutory appeal, the requirement of deposit was already made by the respondent. Resultantly, the order is just, proper and does not call for any interference. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and gone through the material on record placed before us, we are prima-facie of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge had been made after considering every submissions made by both the counsels and a close scrutiny of the material on record. We also found from the order that in coming to the conclusion, the learned Single Judge has not only considered rival stands, but has also considered the effect of the Circular dated 20.10.2005, as well as the contentions taken by the original petitioner and the handwritten objections tendered before it. The said handwritten objections have also been found to have not been gone into properly by the relevant authority. It appears that discretion has been exercised by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to an appropriate authority. 11. We have also found from the record that the learned Single Judge has justifiably found an error that has crept in at an appropriate stage and that stage will have to take care of the situation. Hence, the order passed remanding the issue to the stage of Deputy Executive Engineer for fresh consideration found to be just. We see no infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. We have examined and may observe the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter, as being proper. Hence, the order passed remanding the issue to the stage of Deputy Executive Engineer for fresh consideration found to be just. We see no infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. We have examined and may observe the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter, as being proper. We deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs-5, 7, 8 and 9 as under : “[5] Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents placed on record, the circular dated 20.10.2005 reads as under:- “It has come to our notice that in one of the cases booked for unauthrorized use of electricity under S.12G of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Assessing Officer concerned had passed a final order under Section 126(3) of the Act in a standard printed format and the consumer has been able to easily obtain stay order from the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat only on this ground. It would be relevant to state here that the Assessing Officer passing under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act 2003 is required to pass a reasoned order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Further, in the final orders of assessments, the Assessing Officer concerned is required to deal with each and every point of objections made by the consumer against the provisional assessment order served upon him and give reasons for not entertaining any of the objections raised by the consumer. Passing of final assessment orders in a printed format without application of mind by the Assessing Officer concerned would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings and such final orders cannot stand legal scrutiny in the Courts of law. Therefore, all concerned Assessing Officer may please be instructed to pass reasoned individual orders in each case after examining the facts of the case and on due consideration of the submissions made by the consumers against the provisional assessment orders served upon them. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 30.9.2005 in SCA No.19931/2005 is extracted overleaf for reference.” [7] After the supplementary bill and the notice the petitioner was called upon for giving his explanation on 04.02.2011 at 10:30. Thereafter, again on 07.02.2011, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and making his submissions on merits. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 30.9.2005 in SCA No.19931/2005 is extracted overleaf for reference.” [7] After the supplementary bill and the notice the petitioner was called upon for giving his explanation on 04.02.2011 at 10:30. Thereafter, again on 07.02.2011, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and making his submissions on merits. It appears that the petitioner has given handwritten objections, wherein he has given detail as under:- “(1) The calculation of the bill is totally wrong ground against the rules framed by GERC. The proportionate units are to be arrived at by total recorded unit * total unauthorized load subtracted by total connected load. In place of this, you hand taken the maximum demand of 26.7 KW as 26.7 HP and added the 10.52 HP (7.845 KW) as unauthorized load and total connected load as 37.22 HP and prepare the proportionate bill. The definition of connected load and maximum demand under supply Code Section 2 under 2.1 is as under. (A) Connected Load:- Sum of the rated capacity of all the consuming apparatus installed at the consumer premises and actually connected to the system of the Distribution Lincesee at the time of inspection once the connection has been released initially. This shall be expressed in KW or KVA of rating in KVA, the same may be converted to KW by multiplying the KVA with a power factor of 0.9 of the same or any other Apparatus is rated by the manufacturer in H.P., the H.P. Rating shall be converted to KW by multiplying in by 0.476. (B) Maximum Demand:-The maximum demand in KW or KVA, as the case may be shall mean an average KW/KVA supplied during consecutive 30/15 min. (depending upon the type of meter being used) period of maximum use where such meter with the features of reading the maximum demand in KW/KVA directly has been provided. As per above provision, the calculation of KWH and M.D. is totally wrong and against the provision of GERC. The checking officer has written the maximum demand, the actual connected Load is not stated. In absent of connected load, you can not calculate the bill. The submitted bill is itself wrong as per the rules and regulations of GERC. The correct bill will be as per enclosed sheet of Rs.1,70,506.72 in place of Rs.4,94,763.23. (2) In the month of Nov. In absent of connected load, you can not calculate the bill. The submitted bill is itself wrong as per the rules and regulations of GERC. The correct bill will be as per enclosed sheet of Rs.1,70,506.72 in place of Rs.4,94,763.23. (2) In the month of Nov. 2010 the team of Expert Engineers of Korea Country had visited out Factory for 30 days for checking of working and machinery system as well as average consumption and modification thereof. They were not trained with atmosphere of India and demanded Air-condition machines. We had purchased 2 Nos. of A/c units and one no. of Gizer for their requirement on 08.11.2010, details are as under. Name of Supplier Item Bill No. Date of Bill Paid Amt. Cash/ Cheque No. Upashi Krupa Bhandar Gizer - 08/11/10 3150=00 Cash Shreeji Sales A/c. 60 08/11/10 25000=00 Ch.No. 16254 06.12.2010 Shreeji Sales A/c. 61 08/11/10 13500=00 Ch. No.16276 22.12.2010 As above the load of 2 Nos. A/c machines and one No. Gizer was purchased on 08.11.2010 and payment was also made through cheques and hence the period of assessment is to be counted from 02.11.2010 to 07.01.2011 in place of one year period. The copy of purchase bill and Bank Statement is attached with for the evidence of the same. (3) Ownership: The said property is already purchased by us but the old name is till not changed. The copy of ownership documents are enclosed herewith.” [8] The aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner includes the documentary evidence with regards to purchase of electrical appliances subsequently and the exact date on which the electrical appliances were installed and the reasons for such installation. The order of the Deputy Executive Engineer more particularly the conclusion recorded therein are as under:- “On considering and studying oral and written submissions of representative of the consumer, finding is drawn as under, The bill of air-conditioner is in the name of M/s J.Korin. Name of buyer is not mentioned in the bill of geyser. The consumer has not produced test report in that regard as per rules of the company at this office. Consumer has been issued supplementary bill after deducting one time charge of proposed unit and it is as per the rules of the company. Name of buyer is not mentioned in the bill of geyser. The consumer has not produced test report in that regard as per rules of the company at this office. Consumer has been issued supplementary bill after deducting one time charge of proposed unit and it is as per the rules of the company. Moreover, it was found at the time of checking that the consumer had connected load of 7.845 k.w. For commercial purpose out of her industrial purpose meter. Therefore, the supplementary bill issued to the consumer is as per the rules of the company.” [9] Having perused the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that while coming to the conclusion in the final assessment, the order does not record as to how the objections raised by the petitioner are dealt with. In fact, the Court finds that the Deputy Executive Engineer has proceeded to record the objection in brief, but has failed to assign reasons as to why such objections are not accepted. The Deputy Executive Engineer has also not recorded accurately the exact objections which were raised by the petitioner.” 12. Having carefully considered the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge and having found justification in remanding the matter to Deputy Executive Engineer, we see no reason to interfere with the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge. Additionally, we have noticed that no other submissions have been made which are distinguishable in nature and may call upon us to examine the validity of the order from a different angle. Hence, on the basis of same submissions and same material, we are not inclined to substitute the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Looking to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , especially paragraph-5 of the said decision, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and even otherwise, normally the Court should loath in interfering with the remand order. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit. Further, we have found that the learned Single Judge has also taken care of the interest of both the sides while observing in paragraph-10. Hence, having seen no prejudice serious enough to the appellant, we are not inclined to exercise our appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit. Further, we have found that the learned Single Judge has also taken care of the interest of both the sides while observing in paragraph-10. Hence, having seen no prejudice serious enough to the appellant, we are not inclined to exercise our appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to cost. Since the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, the connected Civil Application also stands dismissed hereby.