The contention of the petitioner is that he is only working for one Mohd. Sattar son of Niyaz Mohd. On 7.2.2018, an inspection team visited the site and found that the petitioner was running a sugarcane "Kolhu" in addition to the sanctioned power load for running a motor through a 7.5 horse power motor which was in addition and in excess of sanctioned power load. When the papers were demanded from him to show that what was the sanctioned power load, the petitioner could not show anything. The inspection team also found that the electricity was being drawn from the main L.T. line through a three core cable. In this view of the matter proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and thereafter the demand notice was issued. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No.33773 of 2013, Islam Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others . In that case we find that the Court had held that it is not necessary to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Code, 2003 for the reason that neither in the FIR nor in the final assessment order there is any allegation that the petitioner therein was using the sanctioned load for crushing sugarcane for other farmers or for hire or for any commercial purpose.
