12.08.2026 ML No.41 Court No.12 (gc) FMA 1882 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 Swapan Pattanayek Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nandadulal Bandyopadhyay …..for the appellant. Mr. Debjit Mukherjee ….for the WBSEDCL. 1. This is an appeal against an order dated September 16, 2025 passed in WPA 21602 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. The brief fact of the case of the appellant is that, initially he challenged a final order of assessment dated March 25, 2025 before this Court, by way of a writ petition, being WPA 11911 of 2025. The said writ petition was taken up by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by an order dated June 25, 2025, the learned Single Judge set aside the said assessment order dated March 25, 2025. The learned Single Judge further directed the respondent/ West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “WBSEDCL”) to afford the writ petitioner/appellant a fresh opportunity of hearing on July 10, 2025, at 12 noon. 2. It appears from the records of the appeal that the appellant raised an objection dated July 9, 2025, 2 before the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager-cum- Assessing Officer, WBSEDCL. Pursuant to the order dated June 25, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 11911 of 2025, the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager-cum-Assessing Officer, WBSEDCL, Lowada Customer Care Centre, Lowada, extended an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and, thereafter, having considered his submissions and other records, passed a final assessment order dated July 18, 2025 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.75,392/-. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated July 18, 2025, filed the writ petition being WPA 21602 of 2025, on the ground that the reasons disclosed by the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager cum Assessing Officer, WBSEDCL, in the order impugned before the writ court were insufficient and the objections of the appellant contained in his letter dated July 9, 2025 were not taken into consideration. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is well- settled that, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to the decision making process. Unless the decision making process suffers from the vices of illegality or irrationality or procedural impropriety, the writ court should not interfere with such decision. In the instant case, it appears from the impugned order dated July 18, 2025, passed by the WBSEDCL that the concerned 3 officer considered the submissions of the appellant and arrived at a specific finding that the appellant failed to produce any supporting documents to rebut the allegation of theft of electricity. No document in support of his contention that the actual load found during inspection would be lesser than the load which was taken for calculation of the unauthorized use, had been filed before the authority. 4. We find from the objection filed by the appellant that, he had disputed the allegation of pilferage. Such disputed question could not have been gone into by the writ court. The learned Single Judge rightly held that since the appellant could not point out that there was any apparent arbitrariness either in the order of final assessment or in the calculation, the writ petition should not be dismissed. 5. We do not find that the Final Assessment order dated July 18, 2025 passed by the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager-cum-Assessing Officer, WBSEDCL, Lowada Customer Care Centre, is a perverse one. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 8. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)