C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 19.08.26 D/L Sl-09 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 20540 of 2026 Santigopal Jana Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharyay, Mr. Pradip Paul, Ms. R. dey, ….for the petitioner. . Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley, ….for the WBSEDCL. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. This writ petition alleges arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in issuing a final assessment order dated June 24, 2026 finding the petitioner liable in the sum of Rs. 3,03,607/- (Rupess Three Lakh Three Thousand Six Hundred and Seven Only). 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a final order of assessment dated April 07, 2025 was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,03,607/- (Rupess Three Lakh Three Thousand Six Hundred and Seven Only). Such final order of assessment was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by passing an 2 order dated June 22, 2026 observing as follows: “On hearing of oral submissions and examining the written submitted documents, I come to the conclusion that the assessment against pilferage of electricity for illegal use may be achieved by as assessed by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer in the Final Assessment Bill. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that revised Energy Bill for pilfer/ loss of electricity is to be preferred by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer, in terms of u/s 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and corresponding clauses of WBERC Notification No-55/WBERC dated 07/08/2013. The revised bill is to be served to the Appellant within 07 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of this order. The amount of the energy charges etc. already paid by the appellant for the period is to be adjusted as per rule.” 4. In terms of the appeal order, a final bill was again raised upon the petitioner on June 24, 2026 calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,03,607/- (Rupess Three Lakh Three Thousand Six Hundred and Seven Only). 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority had directed the Assessing Officer to issue a revised final 3 assessment order or revised final bill and that being so, the bill/final assessment order dated June 24, 2026 could not have indicated the same amount as the finally assessed sum, that was shown in the original final assessment order. 6. He invites the attention of this Court to the Appellate Authority’s order and submits that the Appellate Authority itself had held that “revised Energy Bill for pilfer/loss of electricity is to be preferred by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer”. He submits that some meaning must be ascribed to this observation of the Appellate Authority and as such, the revised final order of assessment could not have indicated the same amount. 7. Mr. Koley, learned advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authorities submits that the Appellate Authority has clearly observed that assessment of charges for pilferage of electricity would be “as assessed by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer in the Final Assessment Bill”. It is submitted that the following observation that revised Energy Bill should be issued would only mean that the date and the other relevant parameters of the bill excepting the assessed amount may be revised. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the 4 respective parties and considered the material on record. It is clear that the Appellate Authority has by the order dated June 22, 2026 held that the assessment of the charges for electricity used unauthorizedly would be “as assessed by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer in the Final Assessment Bill.” This does not indicate that a further assessment was required to be done. The follow up observation that a revised Energy Bill is to be issued should be read as a bill having revised parameters excepting the assessed amount for example the date within which the amount was to be paid would get changed and a fresh bill with a fresh date would be raised. 9. In any case, if the petitioners feels aggrieved and has any doubt as regards the observations made by the Appellate Authority, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for clarification. However, at this moment, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the final bill raised by the electricity authorities. 10. If the petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority seeking any clarification, the Appellate Authority would consider such representation and pass appropriate orders clarifying the doubt raised by the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority would not undertake an impermissible review of its 5 own order. 11. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 20540 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)