JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondent No. 2. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.10.2013, passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 13/2013, whereby the final assessment bill amount Rs. 7,22,617/- dated 13.03.2013, passed by the Area Manager, IRCA-II, Maligaon, Guwahati, is held to be erroneous thereby ordered that the said assessment bill be withdrawn and 50% payment made by the respondent No. 1 be adjusted against the monthly energy bills of the respondent’s industry; and also the order dated 28.01.2014, passed by the Appellate Authority in Review Application No. 02/2013, whereby the review application filed by the petitioners is rejected. 3. The brief fact of the case is that pursuant to a complaint filed by one Shri Gokul Pathak alleging, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 has been cheating the petitioners in payment of fixed charges by removing the specification plates and meters and showing the motors as underrated, the Vigilance team of the petitioners, under the supervision of the Chief Vigilance Officer and accompanied by MTI team of GEC-1 along with a police, inspected the factory premises of the respondent on 06.03.2013. During the inspection, the Junior Engineer of the respondent No. 1 was present and all the details of the motors and other machines installed at the factory were recorded in his presence. 4. During the inspection, following anomalies and irregularities were detected by the inspection team: (i) The industry has a connected load of 425 KW on which fixed charge is levied. However, the gross total load on inspection was found to be 607.805 KW and therefore the industry was using excess load of 182.805 KW without paying the required fixed charge. (ii) The installed equipments, namely, motors, ovens, heaters etc. were found without any specification plates, while in some cases the specification plates were found painted on top making them illegible and the same created doubt towards the allegation as regard manipulation of specification plates to facilitate underrating of the motors and thereby undervalue the fixed charge payable to the petitioner. The factory personnel failed to furnish any documents regarding the technical specification of the installed machines. 5. The factory personnel failed to furnish any documents regarding the technical specification of the installed machines. 5. The engineers from MTI, in presence of the representative of the respondent No. 1, tested the load of the motor by standard reference meter/LT Accucheck and found 62 KW at full load on running condition, while the representative of the respondent No. 1 claimed the rating of the motor at 45 KW. The owner of the respondent factory was requested to furnish the relevant documents including technical specifications and names of the manufacturer/supplier of the installed machines. However, no documents were furnished by the respondent No. 1 6. On 16.03.2013, the Chief Vigilance Officer sent another requisition to the respondent to furnish the required documents. However, there was no response from the respondent No. 1. Having found the prima facie case under Section 135(c) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, an F.I.R. was lodged on 25.03.2013 against the owner of respondent factory and accordingly Guwahati Special Case No. 4/2013, under Section 135(c) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 was registered. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the despite repeated requisitions for furnishing of the relevant documents as regard specifications of the machines installed in the factory, the respondent No. 1 did not provide the documents/particulars, rather filed a complaint before the Chairman, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd, (APDCL), petitioner No. 1 herein, making some false allegation against the Chief Vigilance Officer stating that the inspection in question was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. 8. On the basis of the inspection report, the petitioner No. 6 by letter dated 12.03.2013, prepared an assessment bill dated 12.03.2013 for an amount of Rs.7,22,617/- and sent to the Assistant General Manager, Maligaon and Jalukbari Electrical Sub Division. 9. The respondent No. 1 filed a written objection against the assessment bill dated 12.03.2013 stating, inter alia, that the inspection at the factory premises were not properly conducted as the motors/machines kept as standby/spare and even for two motors/machines, the connected load has been recorded separately in a most illegal manner, although there is connected change over for not to run the machines simultaneously and accordingly, prayed for reconsideration of the assessment bill. 10. 10. By an order dated 25.04.2013, after consideration of the written objection filed by the respondent, petitioner No. 6 held that the respondent No. 1 had committed malpractice as per Clause 5.A.4 of the ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE Related Matters Regulation, 2004 (as amended in 2007) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation of 2007’) and there is no scope for revision of the assessment bill dated 12.03.2013, and accordingly, Final Assessment bill dated 25.04.2013, for an amount of Rs. 7,22,617/-, was served to the respondent No. 1. 11. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal under Section 127 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 challenging the order dated 25.04.2013 stating that the inspection team visited the respondent factory in absence of the authorized Manager of the factory and without proper verification of the details of the connected load, conducted inspection in a most whimsical and mechanical manner and prepared the inspection report. 12. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated 21.10.2013, allowed the Appeal No. 13/2013, inter alia, observed that the inspection team without testing all the motors, assumed that all the motors of the Mixing Mill are of 62 KW, which cannot be considered as correct assessment. It has further observed that although in the written statement the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL stated that most of the motors were found without specification plates, the Inspection Report did not contain any specific comment on the removal of the specification plates. The Appellate Authority also noted that had there been a systematic technical inspection, section-wise, of the production line of the industry, the total load would have been 661.356 KW as per approved Single Line Diagram and the statements of other officers, who were in the inspection team, were contradictory and the inspection team did not test/verify the possibility of running of all the motors simultaneously despite objection raised by the representative of the respondent No. 1 and that the Inspection Team could not assess the connected load correctly. 13. It has further observed that no damage was caused by the respondent to the metering system/equipments of the industry and only painting was done on the machines, which can be removed and had there been any excess use of connected load the demand would have crossed the contracted demand. 13. It has further observed that no damage was caused by the respondent to the metering system/equipments of the industry and only painting was done on the machines, which can be removed and had there been any excess use of connected load the demand would have crossed the contracted demand. Accordingly, it was held that the assessment conducted was erroneous and ordered that the assessment bill in question be withdrawn immediately and the 50% payment made by the respondent No. 1 be adjusted in the next monthly bill and exonerated the respondent No. 1 from the charge of committing malpractice. 14. Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the total connected load, as observed by the Appellate Authority, was 661.356 KW as per the approved SLD and it signifies that the consumer has installed additional machines to the extent of 236.356 KW without the knowledge of the petitioners, inasmuch as the connection for 425 KW was released on 14.06.2011, whereas the SLD was approved by the Senior Electrical Inspector on 30.07.2012. Therefore, the consumer has violated the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Regulation of 2007 by failing to inform APDCL about the alteration or extension. 15. He submits that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider the loss of revenue by the petitioners and also has ignored the fact that the painting on the name plates of machinery was an act attributable to the consumer, but the same was not considered at all. The provisional bill was raised as per the provisions of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and there is no scope for the consumer to raise grievance against the same. Therefore, the findings of the learned Appellate Authority that the bill was raised before any clarification from the consumer is erroneous. He contends that the Chief Vigilance Officer was not afforded an opportunity to attend the hearing before the learned Appellate Authority. 16. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, submits that the assessment bill dated 25.04.2013 was issued to the respondent on the basis of the Inspection Report dated 06.03.2013 as per the provisions of Section 126 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and Clause 5.A.4 of the Regulation of 2007, on account of malpractice committed by the respondent. He submits that the use of power more than the connected load has caused revenue loss to the petitioners, which the Appellate Authority has failed to consider. He submits that the use of power more than the connected load has caused revenue loss to the petitioners, which the Appellate Authority has failed to consider. He further submits that despite receipt of the provisional bill and even during the hearing before the Appellate Authority, the respondent did not produce any documents relating to the rating of the four motors. Therefore, in such circumstances, at best, the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration instead of setting aside the assessment bill in its entirety. 17. Mr. Banik, learned counsel, further submits that the respondent No. 1 having been allowed 425 KW connected load on 14.06.2011, the subsequent installation of four additional motors without informing the petitioners, as mandated under Clause 5.3 of the Regulation of 2007, was wholly illegal and the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for assigning the load of all the motors subsequently added to the respondent’s industry. He submits that the findings of the Appellate Authority to the effect that 237 KW ought to have been deducted from the detected load of 607.805 KW on account of the existence of a changeover system, is perverse, inasmuch as the respondent had installed additional load around July 2012 after release of 425 KW on 14.06.2011, without any intimation to the supplier and in clear violation of Clause 5.3 of the Regulation of 2007, which resulted in not sealing the changeover switch by the supplier thereby allowing scope to use all the motors simultaneously, which amounts to malpractice within the meaning of Section 126 and Clause 5.A.4 of the Regulation of 2007. Accordingly, in any view of the matter, he submits that the Appellate Authority erred in law and the impugned order dated 21.10.2013, passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 13/2013, and the order dated 28.01.2014, in Review Application No.02/2013, are liable to be set aside and quashed. 18. Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, while raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, submits that no resolution has been passed by the Board of Directors of the Company authorizing the filing of the present writ petition, nor the petitioner is represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of APDCL, as required under Section 179 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013. In support of his submission, Mr. In support of his submission, Mr. Roy has placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. , 2011 (11) SCC 524 wherein, it has been held that "the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside because the Respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the company and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the company to file suit against the Appellant and authorised Shri Ashok K. Shukla to do so. The letter of authority issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K. Shukla to authorise another person to file suit on behalf of the company." 19. On merits, he submits that the Chief Vigilance Officer, along with other officers, had inspected the factory premises of the respondents on 06.03.2013. At that time, one Shri R.K. Das was functioning as the Area Manager-cum- Assessing Officer. However, on the date of inspection, i.e. on 06.03.2013, the Area Manager-cum-Assessing Officer was not the part of the Vigilance Team and the Area Manager-cum-Assessing Officer did not sign the Inspection Report. The Chief Vigilance Officer is a retired IPS officer, who is not competent as the inspection and assessment has to be carried out by the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer. The Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission, by order dated 18.09.2018, held in paragraph 3(a) that the Assessing Officer must be present during all the inspections, since he is the one who is required to prepare the assessment bill. Though the said order was passed in 2018, its principle is squarely applicable in the present case, for if the Assessing Officer is not present at the time of inspection, he will not be in a position to prepare a correct assessment bill. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was admittedly not present during inspection conducted on 06.03.2013, which vitiates the entire inspection proceedings. 20. Mr. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was admittedly not present during inspection conducted on 06.03.2013, which vitiates the entire inspection proceedings. 20. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, submits that the Government of Assam by an Order dated 06.11.2017 published in Assam Gazette dated 18.11.2017, framed the 'Assam State Electricity Regulatory Commission ( ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE ) Regulations, 2007' replacing the earlier ' ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE and Related Matters Regulation, 2004'. Referring to Clause 7.4.1, he submits that procedure for booking a case for unauthorised use of electricity, inspection, assessment of bill are provided, which the petitioners have failed to adhere to. 21. He submits that the agreement dated 14.06.2011, executed between the Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1, a panel board drawing (Single Line Diagram), duly approved by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, shows that changeover switches were fitted for each division in the factory premises which means that when two electric motors are fitted, same cannot be run simultaneously and only one motor would function while the other remained dormant and other motor being used only as a standby in the event of a defect in the functioning motor. 22. However, during inspection, the petitioners also counted the load of the spare/standby motors, and only because of such erroneous calculation, the load was shown in excess. If the load of the spare/standby motors is excluded, the connected load would fall below 425 KW. 23. Mr. Roy, learned counsel submits that although the Regulation 5.3 of the ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE and Related Matter Regulation, 2007, provides that if the consumer desires to increase the connected load and to need to change the connected load, if any, shall be sent in writing to the Licensee, however, it is the case of the respondent No. 1 that there was, in fact, no excess load in the factory premises. All the motors and equipment installed in the factory were in conformity with the sanctioned load, as reflected in the Motor Load Test Report dated 31.12.2013. 24. He submits that the motors and other equipments were duly reflected in the approved panel board drawing (Single Line Diagram), wherein the details of all such machineries were shown. So, the provisions of the Clause No. 5.3 of the Supply Code would not apply in the present case and for this reason, no application was required to be submitted for the extension of the load. So, the provisions of the Clause No. 5.3 of the Supply Code would not apply in the present case and for this reason, no application was required to be submitted for the extension of the load. He submits that the petitioners themselves has stated that the Vigilance Team detected load of 607.805 KW connected to the mains, which was 182.805 KW in excess of the authorized connected load of 425 KW and there was no record of change over switches and standby motors in the report of Vigilance Team, which is contrary to the record duly approved by the Senior Electrical Officer, Govt. of Assam while approving the Electrical Panel Board Circuit (Single Line Diagram). In the Inspection Report dated 06.03.2013, the employee of the Respondent No. 1 wrote his objection stating that load is calculated for unfitted motors which was kept as spare motors and the inspection team calculated the load of both the motors where change over switches are fitted between two motors and in place of two motors only one motor load was to be calculated and not for the spare motor. The Respondent had requested the Petitioners for re-verification of the actual connected load which was not done. 25. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, further submits that in the factory of the respondent No. 1, a digital meter is fitted, which is known as MDI, and in that regard he relied upon the order dated 08.10.2018, passed by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission, regarding digital meters, wherein Rules relating to digital meters were laid down which, according to him, are applicable to the present case. Mr. Roy, learned counsel submits that the entire facts stated in the writ petition are full of disputed question of facts and contradiction and the averments made therein are based on falsehood and as such the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 26. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 27. On inspection of the factory premises of the respondent No. 1 on 06.03.2013, it was found that the respondent No. 1 was utilizing a load of 607.805 KW against the sanctioned connected load of 425 KW, thereby using an excess load of 182.805 KW. 27. On inspection of the factory premises of the respondent No. 1 on 06.03.2013, it was found that the respondent No. 1 was utilizing a load of 607.805 KW against the sanctioned connected load of 425 KW, thereby using an excess load of 182.805 KW. It was found that most of the equipments installed in the factory were without any specification plates and in some cases, the specification plates were painted on top making them illegible. Having found above, the petitioners requested the respondent to furnish the documents regarding the technical specification of the installed machineries, to which the respondent has failed to respond. 28. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an F.I.R. having found prima facie case under Section 135(c) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and accordingly case was registered and raised a final assessment bill on 12.03.2013 for an amount of Rs. 7,22,617/- against the respondent No. 1. On the written objection filed by the respondent No. 1 against the final assessment bill, the petitioners, after consideration, has held that the respondent No. 1 has committed malpractice, against which an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 21.10.2013, has disposed of the Appeal by holding that the assessment conducted was erroneous thereby ordered that the assessment bill be withdrawn immediately and 50% payment made by the appellant be adjusted against the monthly energy bills of the respondent factory. 29. Clause 5.3 of the ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE and Related Matters Regulations, 2007, relates to extensions and alterations, which provides that should the consumer, at any time after the supply of energy has been commenced, desire to increase the number of size of lights, fans, motors etc. in his premises or in any way alter the position of his wiring therein, notice thereof and need to change the connected load if any, shall be sent in writing to the licensee. If as a result of such proposed extensions and alterations, there is possibility of an increase in connected load over the sanctioned demand, the consumer shall take steps to submit requisition for additional connected load. Failure to regularise the increase in connected load may result in billing at the penal rates, as provided for under the rules, and also result in disconnection of supply after due notice. 30. Failure to regularise the increase in connected load may result in billing at the penal rates, as provided for under the rules, and also result in disconnection of supply after due notice. 30. Clause 5.A.4 of the Regulation of 2007 relates to method of assessment of the electricity charge payable in case of theft pending adjudication by the appropriate court which provides that where a consumer is found to be indulging in a Malpractice with regard to use of electricity and use of device to commit theft of electricity the authorised officer under section 126 of the Act may without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against such a consumer ask him to pay compensation which shall be assessed. 31. Clause 5.A.4.1 relates to use of unauthorized Electricity/Load exceeding authorized/connected load and the same provides as under: “For such nature of malpractice, assessment bill will be made for the category specified below as per the formula stated below for a period of maximum six months. a. Domestic & Agriculture:- 1.5x M (B-A) x 3 = Rupees b. Others:- 1.5x M (B-A) x 6 = Rupees 'A' denotes the authorised load as per agreement 'B' denotes the total connected load detected at the time of inspection. 'M' means relevant fixed charge/ minimum charge on the detected load as per tariff in force. This will be in addition to the normal bill. The excess load will be removed from supplier's mains. However, he may apply for the regularisation of the Load. 3 (three) in the formula means three months. 6 (six) in the formula means six months. In case any damage of transformer or any other appliances of ASEB due to this unauthorised extension of load, the cost will be realised from the consumer in addition to the assessment bill.” 32. Clause 7.4.1, laid down procedure for booking a case for unauthorised use of electricity, inspection, assessment of bill which is extracted herein under:. "7.4.1 Procedure for booking a case for Unauthorised Use of Electricity a) An Assessing Officer, suo-motu or on receipt of reliable information regarding unauthorised use of electricity shall promptly conduct inspection of such premises. b) The inspection team of the licensee, headed by such Assessing Officer shall carry along with them their Photo Identity Cards. "7.4.1 Procedure for booking a case for Unauthorised Use of Electricity a) An Assessing Officer, suo-motu or on receipt of reliable information regarding unauthorised use of electricity shall promptly conduct inspection of such premises. b) The inspection team of the licensee, headed by such Assessing Officer shall carry along with them their Photo Identity Cards. c) The Assessing Officer shall prepare a report giving details such as connected load, condition of seals, working of meter and mention any irregularity noticed (such as, artificial means adopted for unauthorised use of electricity) as per the Format 14 of this Code. d) The report shall clearly indicate whether sufficient evidence substantiating the fact that unauthorised use of electricity was found or not. The details of such evidence should be recorded in the report and the material utilised for the purpose shall be kept as a proof. e) The report shall be signed by the Assessing Officer, each member of the inspection team and by the consumer. If the consumer fails to sign the report then the same has to be recorded in the inspection report and the report must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post/Speed post on the day or the next day of the inspection. f) Within three working days of the date of inspection, the Assessing Officer shall, analyze the case after carefully considering all the evidence including the consumption pattern, wherever available and the report of inspection. If it is concluded that no unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, no further action will be taken and the consumer will be informed accordingly." 33. As per the checking report, it is reflected that the sanction load for the respondent is 620 KW and the connected load (original) is 425 KW and the connected load found is 607.805 KW. As per the calculation, the total load is shown to be 607.805 KW and the connected load in original is 425 KW, which is excess of 182.805 KW. Records reveals that there were equipments like motors, ovens, heaters etc. As per the calculation, the total load is shown to be 607.805 KW and the connected load in original is 425 KW, which is excess of 182.805 KW. Records reveals that there were equipments like motors, ovens, heaters etc. found to be installed and most of them were without any specification plates and in some cases, the specification plates were found painted on top making them illegible. The respondent No. 1, despite being given the written request to furnish the relevant documents, including the technical specification and names of the manufacturer/supplier of the installed machines, has failed to respond. It is also seen from the statement of the consumer/representative of the respondent that the load of KW of motor is not written on act and the load is taken for untilled motor which was kept in span motor and the load is taken for both the motors in which change over is fitted between two motors. 34. On perusal of the Inspection Report, it is clear that prima facie a case is made out against the respondent No. 1 under Section 135(c) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, for which an F.I.R. was lodged on 25.03.2013 and registered as Guwahati Special Case No. 4/2013, under Section 135(c) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. As noted above, Clause 5.3 of the Regulation of 2007 clearly provides that in case of extension and alteration a written notice has to be given to the petitioners. Admittedly, there were additional machineries installed in the respondent’s factory without there being any written information to the petitioners. Thus, on the over all consideration, the respondent No. 1 appears to have indulged in a malpractice and as such, the final bill assessment by the petitioner appears to be as per the provision of the Regulations and Act. 35. Coming to the maintainability of the writ petition raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, it is seen that the petitioner No. 1 is represented by Chairman-cum-Managing Director along with the Chief Vigilance Officer, Deputy General Manager, Senior Manager and other Officers of the petitioner No. 1. Although, no resolution is placed on record to show that the petitioners are authorized to file the writ petition, mere absence of resolution would not be a ground to reject the writ petition being not maintainable as the petitioner No.1 is represented by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 36. Although, no resolution is placed on record to show that the petitioners are authorized to file the writ petition, mere absence of resolution would not be a ground to reject the writ petition being not maintainable as the petitioner No.1 is represented by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 36. The case of Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, pertains to Money Suit filed against the Bank by the respondent Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was not proved that the plaintiff was appointed as director of company and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the Company to file suit against the bank. On its own facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since the respondent had failed to produce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was appointed as Director of the Company and resolution was passed by the Board of Director of the Company to file the suit against the bank authorizing the plaintiff, the suit filed was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed. Therefore, the case relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is not relevant and would not advance the case of the respondent No. 1. 37. The appellate authority appears to have entered into the technicalities to come to a finding that the assessment of final bill was erroneous ignoring the fact that the respondent has installed additional machineries without there being any intimation for extension and alteration of the machineries and consumption of electricity. The Regulation clearly provides for such written intimation as regard the extension and alteration which the respondent has failed to abide by and despite repeated requests in writing to furnish the documents regarding the technical specification of the installed machineries, the respondent No. 1 failed to respond. Justification sought to be made on the additional machineries after having been found to indulged in malpractice cannot be accepted as a valid justification as the respondent No. 1 has failed to abide by the provisions of Regulation and Act and appears to have indulge in the malpractice in installing additional machineries. 38. Regard being had to the competency of the Chief Vigilance Officer with regard to inspection, it is noticed tat the assessment of the bill was made by the Area Manager on the basis of the inspection report. 38. Regard being had to the competency of the Chief Vigilance Officer with regard to inspection, it is noticed tat the assessment of the bill was made by the Area Manager on the basis of the inspection report. Therefore, no fault can be attributed as the assessing officer is the competent Area Manager. Thus, the argument that the Chief Vigilance Officer is not a competent authority to act as assessing officer falls flat and is not acceptable. 39. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the findings and decision of the Appellate Authority are not sustainable, inasmuch as the Appellate Authority has failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Regulations and the ELECTRICITY ACT while holding the final assessment bill dated 25.04.2013 to be erroneous. Accordingly, the order dated 21.10.2013, passed in Appeal No. 13/2013, and the order dated 28.01.2014, passed in Review Application No. 02/2013, are set aside and quashed. However, the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law and on the basis of the records, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties. 41. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above. Cost (s) made easy.