Pursuant to spot inspection and Ext.P1 Mahazar, a provisional bill was issued, which came to be finalised as per Ext.P2 assessment order dated 14.08.2013. The petitioner sought to avail the statutory remedy by filing an appeal. The prayers raised in the writ petition are in the following terms:
“i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction restraining the second respondent from passing of final orders in appeal number GB- 140/2013-14/867 until the proper appellate authority is constituted as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 3 and 4, to defer the proceedings in Ext.P5 until final orders are passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
iii) To issue such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the nature and circumstances of this case.”
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has already finalised the proceedings by passing an order dated W.P.(C) No.29831 of 2014 2 19.11.2014, a copy of which has been produced before this Court. The learned counsel submits that the power, competence and jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, to act as the Appellate authority under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, have already come up for consideration before this Court and as per the judgment rendered in WP(C) No.14286 of 2007 and WP(C) No.19000 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court has declared that the said respondent does not have any competence to act as the Appellate Authority, as the statute contemplates constitution of the Appellate Authority by the State by appointing a person who is not connected with the affairs of the respondent Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner intends to challenge the said order by way of other appropriate proceedings.
In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the order stated as passed by the 2nd respondent by way of appropriate proceedings. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, 'status quo' shall be maintained for a W.P.(C) No.29831 of 2014 3 period of 'two weeks' from today .
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp