JUDGMENT Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by Additional Superintendent Engineer, CMC Division (Special) as well as to the demand notice dated 21.04.2017 and also to the order passed in appeal dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The factual aspects are not much in dispute and as such the same are not being adverted to at this juncture. The grievance espoused by the petitioner is confined to the assessment undertaken by the respondents. He contends that as per the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code read with the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, an assessment was to be undertaken as per the approved formulae. It is submitted that two of the factors that have been taken into consideration while assessing the charges i.e. the number of days and the hours have been wrongly incorporated by the respondent/assessing Authority while raising the demand. He contends that while computing the penalty for Unauthorized Use of Electricity, the Competent Authority is required to take into consideration a period of 365 days preceding the date of Unauthorized Use of Electricity and that it may reduce the period to the actual Unauthorized Use of Electricity when such facts are brought to the notice of the Authority. It is submitted by him that the premises in question was inspected by the officials of the respondents, while the same was under the tenancy of Satpal Kalia for the period from 30.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. The premises was vacant w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 14.07.2008 and on 15.07.2008, it was rented out to one Manjeet Singh and another. The premises was in occupation of the aforesaid Manjeet Singh as on the date of inspection i.e. 04.09.2008. He contends that the premises had a single point connection for which the number of hours i.e. the duration for which the electricity supply was to be assumed, should have been eight and that the number of days had to be reduced taking into consideration the registered rent deed that was adduced by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 Authorities. He contends that the premises had a single point connection for which the number of hours i.e. the duration for which the electricity supply was to be assumed, should have been eight and that the number of days had to be reduced taking into consideration the registered rent deed that was adduced by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 Authorities. He contends that it is thus not a case where the period for the alleged Unauthorized Use of Electricity could not be determined rather, there was a different period when the property in question came in possession of the tenant, who was purportedly found in Unauthorized use of Electricity and as such, the number of days ought to have been counted accordingly. He submits that the aforesaid contention was raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, however the same was not taken into consideration by the respondents. 3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that the mere fact that a rent deed has been executed cannot be taken as a final word on the occupation of the premises. He submits that the burden to proof that there was no Unauthorized Use of Electricity in the premises in question and that it was in actual occupation of some other person is on the petitioner. He further submits that even if it is assumed that the property in question was vacated on 31.03.2008 by the earlier tenant, there can be no presumption that the property in question was vacant w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 14.07.2008. He, however, is not a position to dispute the fact that the abovesaid aspects have not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority in its impugned order. There is thus no consideration of the essential arguments and facts that are agitated by the petitioner to substantiate his grouse. 4. Without commenting any other aspect(s) of the case, more so when the petitioner does not dispute the factums of inspection and has confined his arguments only to the factors that have been applied while assessing the Unauthorized Use of Electricity, I find that the aforesaid contentions have material bearing on the final assessment required to be undertaken. The Appellate Authority was required to examine the said issue and to return a finding after consideration of the said arguments. The Appellate Authority was required to examine the said issue and to return a finding after consideration of the said arguments. When the order does not deal with the alleged arguments, such an order suffers from the vires of being a non-speaking order. 5. The present writ petition is thus allowed. The order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass the order afresh in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the arguments advanced and evidence led by the respective parties in support of their case. The parties will appear before the Appellate Authority on 06.08.2024, whereupon further proceedings shall be undertaken in accordance with law. 6. Petition stands allowed accordingly.