Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent’s mother had purchased a piece of land from one Afrik Singh. The said land was having electric connection provided by the petitioner. Petitioner on the basis of checking done on 09.02.2006 found that the respondent was abstracting electricity dishonestly by bypassing the meter. A penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- was imposed on Afrik Singh, the previous owner, as -2- till 09.02.2006 the land had not been transferred in the name of the mother of the complainant/respondent. Subsequently, on 17.02.2006 notice was issued to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its order dated 09.08.2006 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund sum of Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation. Being aggrieved petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Fora below came to the conclusion that the penalty had been imposed in violation of statutory rules as well as the principles of natural justice without issuing notice to the respondent or providing an opportunity of hearing to him. The entire proceedings were quashed. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has quashed the penalty levied on the respondent on the ground that -3- the same had been levied without issuing either notice to the respondent or providing him with an opportunity of being heard. Contends that assuming there was a lapse on the part of the assessing officer in levying the penalty without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent then the fora below instead of quashing the proceedings should have remitted the case back to the assessing officer from the stage the proceedings became bad in law, with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. The fora below have held that the final order passed by the assessing officer was bad in law as the same had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such a situation, instead of quashing the entire proceedings, the fora below should have quashed the proceedings from the stage they became bad in law. Since the order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, fora below should have remitted the case back to the assessing officer to pass a -4- fresh order in accordance with law after issuing notice to the respondent and giving due opportunity of hearing to him. We agree with the view taken by the fora belo0w that the order of imposing penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- on the respondent without issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to him is bad in law. Imposition of penalty is quashed. Assessing officer is put at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Nothing stated in this order be taken as an expression of opinion. All contentions are left open to the parties. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
