The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a) Call for the records leading to Ext-P1 and P2, and P13 by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified;
b) Declare that Ext.P2 demand is arbitrary and repugnant to Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, ultra vires of the power of the Board and APTS and therefore legally unsustainable.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to take urgent steps to provide service connection to the Petitioner's Ice plant pursuant to Ext.P9, P10 and P12, within a shortest time frame, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
d) Issue such other writs, orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to Ext.P1 site mahazar, the petitioner was served with a inflated bill by way of Ext.P2, when the petitioner approached the second respondent/Appellate Authority by filing Ext.P3. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the Appellate Authority was directed to consider and pass final orders in the appeal, also directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability, which is stated as cleared. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again, by filing WP(C) No.857 of 2012, which was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment, directing the respondents to transfer the connection to the name of the petitioner, which was the main relief sought for in the said writ petition.
3. In the course of proceedings, the petitioner was informed by the 1st respondent that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was missing and as such, the petitioner was required to prefer a fresh appeal, as borne by Ext.P13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh appeal and the writ petition is necessitated because of the coercive proceedings proposed to be taken in the meanwhile.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well, who sought to justify the course and events, with reference to contents of the Counter Affidavit filed before this Court. However, during the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the authority of the 2nd respondent to function as the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act stands intercepted as per judgment dated 11.09.2013 of this Court in WP(C) No.19000 of 2010, holding that the Appellate Authority under the statute has necessarily to a person, who is not connected with the affairs of the Board/licencee. The State Government has now notified the competent authority to act as the Appellate Authority as per Gazette Notification dated 15.10.2014.
In the above circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a proper appeal before the competent authority within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on satisfying the requirements in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Act, the competent authority shall consider and pass final orders in the appeal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the application preferred by the petitioner for sanctioning additional power location is still to be acted upon, because of the pendency of the proceedings. If the entire principal amount due is satisfied, the application preferred by the petitioner for additional power location shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, which shall be subject to the order to be passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal, with regard to the actual extent of liability to be satisfied by the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp