IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 772 of 2010. Padam S/O Sri Bhopal Singh, R/O Vill. Rawali Mahmood, P.S.Ranipur, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Rural), Uttarakhand Power Corporation, Haridwar. 2. Sri Kulbhushan Kukreti, Jr. Engineer, 33/11 K.V. Place Bahadarbad, Distt. Haridwar. 3. District Magistrate, District Haridwar. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Haridwar. …Respondents. Mr. M.K.Goyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Date May 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- a. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 24-2-2010 (Annexure No. 3) to this writ petition. b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the citation (Annexure No.4) to this writ petition. c. To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to provide opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case, and, if after hearing the petitioner it is deemed that the petitioner is required to pay any amount then proper assessment is liable to be made according to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. d. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper. According to the petitioner, assessment of the electricity charges was made against the petitioner for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of filing objection was afforded before passing the order of assessment against him and no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act reads as under:- “(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.” From a perusal of the record, it appears that compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the said Act has not been adhered to by the respondent-authority before proceeding further in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to file objection against the assessment order. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file objection before the authority concerned within a week from today. Thereafter, the respondent-authority i.e. respondent no.1 shall decide the objection of the petitioner within a period of one week. Till then, no recovery shall be made by the respondents from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned assessment order/notice (Annexure-3 to the petition). With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3