S/L 8 18.11.2025 Court. No. 25 sourav WPA 22588 of 2025 Debashis Kar Vs. CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder Mr. Indranil Halder Ms. Neha Singh …for the petitioner. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee … for C.E.S.C. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,81,579/-. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assessing Officer has not assessed the amount correctly. He submits that the petitioner is only using five LED lights, five ceiling fans, one TV, one Fridge, one pump, one Geyser and one AC for the same, the Assessing Officer has assessed that amount of Rs. 2,81,579/- which is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an interim order be passed by allowing the petitioner to deposit the 50 per cent of the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer and the electric connection may be restored and the matter can be decided on merit after exchange of affidavit. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the CESC has submitted that on inspection it is found that five LED lights and five ceiling fans consumes 0.25 KW energy, 2 one TV consumes 0.05 KW energy, one Fridge consumes 0.20 KW, one Pump consumes 0.30 KW, one Geyser consumes 1.00 KW and once AC consumes 1.50 KW according to the assessment the total consumption is 3.30 KW and as such, taking into consideration the Assessing Officer has assessed the amount required to be paid by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the CESC submits that as per Sub-Section 5 of Section 26, it is categorically mentioned that if the Assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that the unauthorized use of electricity has been taken place the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such authorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the CESC further submits that as per Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an appealable order and the petitioner has to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order but in the present case, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal before the appellate authority. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. This Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer wherein the total amount has been assessed Rs. 2,81,579/-. As per 3 Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is a provision of appeal but the petitioner instead of preferring an appeal, he filed the present application. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioner is having the alternative remedy for preferring an appeal but without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority in terms of Section 127 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 10. It is further made clear that if the petitioner files any application for condoning the delay and for any interim order, the appellate authority will pass appropriate order in its own merit. (Krishna Rao, J.)