Cross-examination in electricity pilferage assessments is not automatic; the request must be justified and decided on facts.

In final assessments for alleged electricity pilferage, a consumer has no automatic right to cross-examine officials whose reports or statements are relied on. Clause 39.9.2 requires the assessing authority to enquire into the matter and give a reasonable opportunity before final assessment, but the scope of that opportunity depends on the facts of each case. A request for cross-examination must be specifically justified, considered on its merits, and rejected only with reasons. Cross-examination may be unnecessary where the assessment rests on accounts, but it may become relevant where the case depends on reports or statements alleging tampering or pilferage, particularly if prejudice is shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a final assessment for alleged pilferage of electricity under the supply conditions, the consumer has an automatic right to cross-examine the officials whose statements or reports are relied upon, and whether the refusal of such opportunity vitiates the assessment.

Analysis: Clause 39.9.2 requires the assessing authority to enquire into the matter and give the consumer a reasonable opportunity before final assessment. The content of a reasonable opportunity depends on the facts of each case; it is not a rigid rule that cross-examination must always be granted whenever departmental statements are relied upon. A request for cross-examination cannot be made in a routine manner, and the authority must consider such a request on its merits, applying its mind and giving reasons if it is rejected. Where the assessment is based merely on accounts, cross-examination may not be necessary, but where it rests on reports or statements alleging tampering or pilferage, the need for cross-examination may arise depending on the circumstances. The consumer must also show why cross-examination is necessary and how prejudice has resulted from its denial.

Conclusion: The consumer has no absolute or automatic right to cross-examine in every case; the request must be specifically justified and decided by the adjudicating authority on the facts. The challenge to the High Court's broader view succeeds, while the consumer was left free to renew the request before the appellate authority.

---