JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the respondent no.2, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now JUVNL), whereby and whreunder, on the basis of the average consumption taken from a tampered meter has reduced the amount to Rs.4,55,624/- from Rs.18,29,846/- as mentioned in the FIR lodged at Kuju Police Station by the licensee. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, reads as under: The petitioner is a licensee-cum-transmission utility and the officials of the petitioner inspected the premises of the respondent no.1 on 18.02.2008 and on inspection, it was found that all the seals associated with the CT box of meter body were tampered and thereafter, an inspection report was prepared by the said team. Thereafter, the connection of the petitioner was also disconnected in view of Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003. Pursuance to the inspection, an FIR was also lodged on the same day against the petitioner u/s 135 (1-A) of the Act, 2003. Subsequently, the respondent no.1-consumer moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1280 of 2008 for restoration of the electrical connection which was disconnected by the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2008, whereby, the consumer was given liberty to file representation before the respondent no.2 and in pursuance thereof, the authority was directed to decide the same within three weeks stating the total loss caused to the Board. Thereafter, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, disposed of the representation and passed the final order of assessment dated 15.04.2008 as per which, the amount was reduced to Rs.4,55,624/- from 18,29,846/-, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition. 3. It appears from the factual aspect that an inspection was said to have been conducted on 18.02.2008 under the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 as annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It further appears that for the theft of electricity, an FIR was also instituted under the provision of Section 135 of the Act, 2003 on the same date. It further appears that for the theft of electricity, an FIR was also instituted under the provision of Section 135 of the Act, 2003 on the same date. The consumer, namely, M/s Bajrang Bali Cement Company, the respondent no.1 herein, has challenged the said so called provisional assessment prepared under Section 126 of the Act by filing writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1280 of 2008 and the co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition on 18.03.2008 granting liberty to file representation before the respondent no.2 and in pursuance thereof, the authority was directed to decide the same within three weeks in accordance with law. The concerned Electrical Superintending Engineer has passed the order dated 15.04.2008 whereby and whereunder the total amount has been assessed to be Rs.4,55,624.00 to be paid within the period of 15 days as would appear from annexure-4, which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that whatever amount has been stipulated in the FIR, i.e., to the tune of Rs.18,29,846/-, decision has been taken by the Electrical Superintending Engineer which is of lesser amount, i.e., to the tune of Rs.4,55,624/-, as such the determination so made by the Electrical Superintending Engineer cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the instant writ petition. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-licensee and has gone through the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the Electrical Superintending Engineer in the impugned order dated 15.04.2008. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Sections 126, 135 and 154 of the Act, 2003. Section 126 of the Act, 2003 reads as under: “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 served 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 4 [twice] the tariff rates 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.]” It is evident from the provision of Section 126 that the inspecting team is to inspect the unit in order to assess with respect to the unauthorized use of electricity. The inspecting team is required to prepare an inspection report by giving therein details as also the provisional assessment to the licensee due to use of electricity unauthorizedly. The inspecting team is required to prepare an inspection report by giving therein details as also the provisional assessment to the licensee due to use of electricity unauthorizedly. The inspecting team is required to get the signature of the representative of the unit also. Further, the provision as contained in Section 126 is that an opportunity to file objection is to be provided to the consumer as would appear from the sub-section (3) thereof. When such objection will be filed, then, the same is required to be considered in the light of the provision as contained under sub-section (3) of Section 126 and on consideration of such objection, the final assessment is to be made as required under sub-section (5) thereof. Sub-section (5) of Section 126 further provides that if the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity cannot be ascertained then the same is to be made by taking the average unit for a period of 12 months. The unauthorized use of electricity has been defined under the explanation of Section 126. The reference of Section 135 with Section 154 is also required to be made, which reads as under: “135. The unauthorized use of electricity has been defined under the explanation of Section 126. The reference of Section 135 with Section 154 is also required to be made, which reads as under: “135. Theft of Electricity: - [(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use-- (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; (ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity: Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection: Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.] (2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in this behalf by the State Government may-- (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity [has been or is being], used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which 1 has been, or is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act.” 154. Procedure and power of Special Court. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under 1 [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. (2) Where it appears to any court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] in respect of any offence that the case is one which is triable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that it shall be lawful for such Special Court to act on the evidence, if any, recorded by any court in the case of presence of the accused before the transfer of the case to any Special Court: Provided further that if such Special Court is of opinion that further examination, cross-examination and re-examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is required in the interest of justice, it may re-summon any such witness and after such further examination, cross-examination or re-examination, if any, as it may permit, the witness shall be discharged. (3) The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), try the offence referred to in 1[sections 135 to 140 and section 150] in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial: Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this subsection, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the said Code for the trial of such offence: Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (4) A Special Court may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to, any offence tender pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof, and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under section 307 thereof. (5) The [Special Court shall] determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court. (6) In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "civil liability" means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in [sections 135 to 140 and section 150.] Section 135 confers power upon the licensee to institute FIR in case of theft of electricity. Section154, more particularly, sub-section (6) thereof provides that determination of civil liability depending upon the fate of the criminal case. 6. Question of simultaneous proceeding under Section 126 and Section 135 crept up for its consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Anr. vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraphs-24 to 31 which read as under: “24. Upon their plain reading, the marked differences in the contents of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act are obvious. They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law. We have already noticed that Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 25. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to “offences and penalties” and title of the section is “theft of electricity”. 25. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to “offences and penalties” and title of the section is “theft of electricity”. The section opens with the words “whoever, dishonestly” does any or all of the acts specified under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Besides imposition of punishment as specified under these provisions or the proviso thereto, sub-section (1-A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the 2003 Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, through officer of rank authorised in this behalf by the appropriate commission, may immediately disconnect the supply of electricity and even take other measures enumerated under sub-sections (2) to (4) of the said section. The fine which may be imposed under Section 135 of the 2003 Act is directly proportional to the number of convictions and is also dependent on the extent of load abstracted. 26. In contradistinction to these provisions, Section 126 of the 2003 Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression “unauthorised use of electricity”. This assessment/proceedings would commence with the inspection of the premises by an assessing officer and recording of a finding that such consumer is indulging in an “unauthorised use of electricity”. Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment order in terms of Section 126(2) of the 2003 Act. 27. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. 27. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. Thereafter, any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him or prefer an appeal against the resultant final order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The order of assessment under Section 126 and the period for which such order would be passed has to be in terms of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The Explanation to Section 126 is of some significance, which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XII and relates to investigation and enforcement and empowers the assessing officer to pass an order of assessment. 28. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea. 29. Thus, it would be clear that the expression “unauthorised use of electricity” under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorised use, even in the absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorisation, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under Section 135 of the Act. 30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorised use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 31. Section 135 of the 2003 Act significantly uses the words “whoever, dishonestly” does any of the listed actions so as to abstract or consume electricity would be punished in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. “Dishonesty” is a state of mind which has to be shown to exist before a person can be punished under the provisions of that section.” 7. The aforesaid judgment lays down the proposition that the inspection made under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is quite different to that of the proceeding said to have initiated under Section 135 of the Act, 2003, as such, difference has been carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking into consideration the fact that under Section 126 liability is to be casted upon the consumer on account of unauthorized use of electricity having no mens rea while the proceeding under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 is to be commenced if there is any loss to the licensee having mens rea. 8. The Act, 2003 has purposely been inserted. 8. The Act, 2003 has purposely been inserted. The provision as contained under Section 126 although not was in the earlier act, i.e., the Act of 1910. The purpose is that the licensee can also be put to loss by theft of electricity having the specific intention to that effect and there might be situation that without any mens rea also, the Borad have been put to loss due to unauthorized use of electricity. The Parliamentarian in order to consider that what would be the eventuality if the electricity will be consumed by the consumer without having any mens rea, therefore, the provision of Section 126 has been carved out so as to avoid the loss which is to be sustained by the licensee due to unauthorized use of electricity either by way of unauthorized use having no mens rea or due to theft having mens rea. 9. Section 126 provides the process of conducting inspection of the premises and the mandatory process is that while inspecting, the inspecting team is to assess the loss sustained due to unauthorized use of electricity, meaning thereby, the loss sustained in the unit is to be reflected in the inspection report. The section 126 further provides that the provisional assessment so made by incorporating the details of the means of electricity unauthorizedly along with the loss of unit consumed by the consumer. It is only in that circumstances, the assessment so made under Section 126 will be said to be made under Section 126 in accordance with law. 10. This Court, having discussed the aforesaid fact and coming to the Annexure-1 which is the inspection report dated 18.02.2008, wherefrom it is evident that only the allegation of the meter and equipment have been given without making any reference of the unauthorized consumption of electricity. For ready reference, the content of the Annexure-1 is being reproduced as under: “ … 11. Remarks:- (1) On the basis of the present status of tamper and condition of seels associated with the meter, it is apparent that meter has been interfered, thus affecting the actual consumption. (2) Two no. polycarbonates seels bearing no. 6077886 & 6077887 were offered on meter base and another two number bearing no. 6077888 & 6077889 were offered on C.T. Bose to retain its existing condition of meter. 11. (2) Two no. polycarbonates seels bearing no. 6077886 & 6077887 were offered on meter base and another two number bearing no. 6077888 & 6077889 were offered on C.T. Bose to retain its existing condition of meter. 11. This Court, therefore, is of the view that what is being referred by the petitioner to be an assessment under Section 126 of the Act, 2003, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be considered under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 for the reason as referred above. 12. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1280 of 2008 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the Electrical Superintending Engineer to consider the grievance of the petitioner after liberty having been granted to make representation and assess the loss caused to the Board. The authorities have passed the order coming to the conclusion by assessing the amount to the tune of Rs.4,55,624/-. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the licensee on the ground that the amount so assessed to the tune of Rs.4,55,624/- is absolutely unjustified amount by taking the amount as referred in the FIR. 13. The statement to that effect has been made at para-25 and 26 of the writ petition. Much emphasis has been given by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent upon paragraphs 25 and 26 that there is no dispute to that effect but the question is that when the statutory mandate provides that a thing to be done, the same is to be done strictly in accordance with law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors., [AIR (1964) SC 358], wherein at paragraph 8 it has been held as under: ? “8. … ... its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....” Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Babu Verghese and Ors. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....” Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Babu Verghese and Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., [ (1999) 3 SCC 422 ], at paragraphs 31 & 32 held as under: ? “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: ? [Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-judge bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a statutory principle of administrative law.” 14. Here, in the instant case, the preparation of the inspection report has been mentioned under Section 126 so as to be reflected in the inspection report. The very purpose is that the consumer must be aware that what incriminating has come against him and he may be able to give effective reply to that effect as provided under sub-section (3) thereof. 15. Question of making statement at para-25 and 26, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be construed to be a part of the inspection report in absence of the same in the inspection report as would appear from Annexure-1. 15. Question of making statement at para-25 and 26, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be construed to be a part of the inspection report in absence of the same in the inspection report as would appear from Annexure-1. The purpose of provisional assessment as stipulated under Section 126 (1) is to provide adequate and stuffiest opportunity to the consumer along with entire details and if it has been stated by way of statement in the writ petitioner, the same cannot be said to be a part of the inspection report, therefore, merely by making statement, the same cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of the preparation of the inspection report at the time of making provisional assessment as required under Section 126(1) of the Act, 2003. 16. So far as the contention that the impugned order the assessed amount to the tune of Rs.4,55,624/- is not in consonance with the amount referred in the FIR. Said argument cannot be said to be proper and merely by reference of higher amount in the FIR, the assessment so made by the authority on remand by the High Court, cannot be said to be improper reason being the amount referred in the FIR is altogether to be dealt with under Section 135 read with Section 154 and has got nothing to do with the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003. 17. This Court, therefore, basis upon the aforesaid reasoning, is of the view that the aforesaid argument of assailing the order dated 15.04.2008 merely because the aforesaid amount as has been referred in the FIR since is not taken into consideration by the authority concerned while passing the order is having no substance. 18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition for the reason aforesaid, lacks merit and the same stands dismissed. 19. 18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition for the reason aforesaid, lacks merit and the same stands dismissed. 19. Before parting with the order, it is needless to say that the provision is already there under Section 154 (5) of the Act, 2003 and the same is the question of loss of revenue as is being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-licensee, according to the considered view of this Court, is not being prejudiced since for the laches committed on the part of the petitioner, there cannot be any direction but even then, the statute provides a provision to take care of the loss to be sustained by the Board as provided under Section 154(5) of the Act, 2003. 20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.