The mandatory requirement to pass orders "in accordance with law" includes the principle of *audi alteram partem*.

The petitioner, a consumer of South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, challenged an order dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer (Respondent No. 3) which affirmed a high electricity demand

Following an inspection in 2009, a provisional assessment of Rs. 16,73,286 was raised, later reduced to Rs. 3,08,666 upon appeal, with directions to adjust excess payments

subsequent inspections in 2011 led to an FIR and a new assessment of Rs. 32,95,543

The petitioner previously approached the High Court in CWJC No. 13813 of 2013, where the Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation

Respondent No. 3 subsequently issued the impugned order affirming a revised liability of Rs. 42,87,356 without granting the petitioner a personal hearing

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent authority is violative of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a personal hearing

2. Whether the expression "in accordance with law" in a court direction implies a mandatory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing

The Court applied the fundamental principle of administrative law, Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side), as a component of the principles of natural justice

The Court interpreted the specific judicial direction to act "in accordance with law" from the earlier order in CWJC No. 13813 of 2013 as necessarily encompassing the requirement to provide a fair hearing

the Court relied on Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s power to ensure procedural fairness by state authorities.

The Court examined the rival contentions: the petitioner argued that the Electrical Superintending Engineer passed the order without any personal hearing, while the respondents argued that the previous court order did not explicitly mandate a hearing and that the representation was duly considered

The Court rejected the respondents' narrow interpretation of the previous order. It reasoned that the phrase "in accordance with law" is not a mere formality but inherently includes the obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected party

The Court noted that while the petitioner's counsel may have been present, the impugned order failed to record or discuss any oral submissions made, confirming a procedural lapse

Consequently, the Court found the decision-making process flawed on the grounds of natural justice, regardless of the merits of the underlying financial demand

The High Court did not quash the demand on merits but directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority on 07.08.2026 for a personal hearing. The respondent authority was ordered to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order within one month of the hearing, specifically addressing the petitioner’s contentions. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.