Madras High Court
R. Muthukumaraswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2014
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: R.K.Agrawal, N. Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 7-2-2014
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.K.AGRAWAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHKUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.24888 and 25156 of 2012
M.P.Nos.1, 2, 3 of 2012 in W.P.No.24888 of 2012
W.P.No.24888 of 2012
R. Muthukumaraswamy,
President of Madras Bar Association,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 104. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Chief Secretary to Governemnt,
Energy (A1) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 9.
2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
rep.by its Secretary,
19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai 8.
3. The Selection Committee for
Appointment of Chairman
to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
rep.by its Chairperson
Justice K.Sampath (Retd.) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.Ms.No.118, Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.11.2011 and quashing the same as illegal and in contravention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consult the Chief Justice of this Court for appointment of a person, who is or was a judge of the High Court as Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Section 84 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
W.P.No.25156 of 2012
K. Murali Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Chief Secretary to Government.
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
3. D. Debendranath Sarangi, I.A.S.,
Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
4. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
rep.by its Secretary,
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
5. The Selection Committee,
rep.by its Chairperson,
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Sampath,
Retired Judge, No.6 2nd Street,
Jagadambal colony, Royapettah,
Chennai 14.
6. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission,
rep.by its Chairperson,
3rd and 4th Floor,
Chandorlok Building,
No.36, Janpath,
New Delhi 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to complete the process of appointment of Chairperson to the 4th respndent viz., Tamilnadu Electricity Regulatory Commission by getting the suitable names recommended by the Selection Committee viz., the 5th respondent, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court, in failure direct the first respondent to act in accordance with Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 without any delay.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.L.Rajah (W.P.No.24888/2012)
Mr.A. Saravanan (W.P.No.25156/2012)
For Respondents : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Advocate General
assisted by Mr.G.Vasudevan (TNEB)
: Mr.Abdul Saleem,
Spl.G.P. (for State Government)
COMMON ORDER
R.K. AGRAWAL, CJ. & N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
These Public Interest Litigations are filed by the President of Madras Bar Association and a practising Advocate of this Court. The issue raised in these writ petitions are common and hence both the writ petitions are heard together.
2. In W.P.No.24888 of 2012 petitioner seeks to quash the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.118 Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.11.2011, alleging that it is in contravention of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association), and for consequential prayer to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to consult the Chief Justice for appointment of a person, who is or was a Judge of the High Court as Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Section 84 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. In the said Government Order, the constitution of the Selection Committee for selecting the Chairman of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission consisting of Chairperson and two Members was notified. The said constitution of the Selection Committee having been challenged and selection was not carried out, W.P.No.25156 of 2012 was filed to complete the process of appointment of Chairperson to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission by getting a suitable name recommended by the Selection Committee, within a stipulated time and direct the State Government to act in accordance with Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, without any delay.
4. The Crux of the issue raised in W.P.No.24888 of 2012 is that whether the State is bound to appoint the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission only from a retired or sitting Judge of the High Court in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. The basis of the writ petition is that the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to consolidate the Laws relating to Generation, Transmission, Distribution, Trading and using of the electricity with an object of promoting conducive development of electrical industry, promote competition therein, protect interest of consumers, ensure supply of electricity to all areas, rationalise electricity tariff, ensure that transparent policies are institutionalised, and for promoting efficient and environmentally benign policies. The said Act repeals the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as well as the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998.
5. According to the petitioner, 2003 Act was enacted in furtherance of the policies envisaged under the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, which mandated establishment of an independent and transparent regulatory mechanism entrusted with responsibility on the Regulatory Commission. 2003 Act contains separate provisions of performance of dual functions of the Commission and Section 61 is the enabling provision for framing regulations by the Central Commission. The determination of the terms and conditions of the tariff has been left to the domain of the Regulatory Commission. According to the petitioner, the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is also having some adjudicatory power. Hence, legally qualified person, particularly a sitting Judge or retired Judge of the High Court alone can be appointed as Chairperson of the Commission, as rights of parties are to be decided.
6. Section 84 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of the State Commission. Relying upon the said provision it is contended that the Chairperson must have adequate knowledge in various fields relating to law, and appointment of Chairperson from the sitting or retired Judge of the High Court alone would be a duly constituted Commission. The State Government shall constitute the Selection Committee for filling up the vacancy and the Selection Committee shall finalise the selection of Chairperson and Members within three months from the date on which the reference is made and the Committee shall recommend panel of two names for every vacancy, after satisfying itself that such person does not have any financial or other interest, which is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as Chairperson or Member, as the case may be. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when a Regulatory Commission has been constituted exercising powers as Courts of law, it is imperative that such Tribunals are manned by a Judicial Member and Technical Members and for that proposition the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) is relied on. The functions of the commission are specified under section 86 of the Act and the State Commissions are empowered to make Regulations under section 181 of the Act. Pointing out the above, the petitioner in W.P.No.24888 of 2012 prayed for quashing the Government Order, appointing Selection Committee for selecting Chairperson with consequential prayer.
7. The said prayer is opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit contending that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission was constituted on 17.3.1999 under section 17 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 and the Commission is continuously functioning in terms of proviso to Section 82(1) of 2003 Act. The Members of the State Commission are selected by a Selection Committee constituted under section 85 and its functions are specified under section 85. Section 84(1) empowers appointment of Chairperson and Members of the State Commission by the Government. However, Section 84(2) enables the State Government to appoint any person as Chairperson, who is or has been Judge of the High Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. As per Section 85 of the Act, Selection Committee is constituted to select a Chairperson and Members, which is permissible under section 84(1). The validity of Section 84(1) has not been challenged by the petitioner and only the notification issued under section 85 to select the Chairperson is challenged in the writ petition. According to the respondents, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has to exercise mainly executive and legislative functions, besides adjudicatory functions. Section 84(2) being optional, the petitioner cannot contend that only retired or sitting High Court Judge has to be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Selection Committee was constituted headed by a retired Judge of the High Court as well as the Chief Secretary of the State and the Chairperson of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi. As against the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission, first appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and second appeal lies before the Supreme Court. The Appellate Tribunal under the Electricity Act is established under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Central Government, which shall consist of Chairperson and three other Members. The Appellate Tribunal must contain Judicial Member and Technical Member and the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall be a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. Thus, an effective appeal remedy is provided, wherein a Judicial Member must be the Chairperson, and therefore the original authority viz., the Electricity Regulatory Commission need not necessarily be headed by a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.24888 of 2012 argued that the action of the respondents in constituting Selection Committee for the purpose of identifying candidates for appointment to the post of Chairperson is in violation of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) and (2013) 1 SCC 745 (Namit Sharma v. Union of India) particularly when Electricity Regulatory Commission is performing the quasi-judicial functions viz., adjudicating the disputes between the Licensees and Generating Companies, and refer any dispute for arbitration, among other things. Section 94 of the Act empowers the Commission same powers, as vested in the Civil Court under CPC for summoning and enforcing attendance of any person, examining, discovery or production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, etc. The Commission is also vested with the power to pass interim orders in any proceedings and the proceedings before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings, within the meaning of Sections 193, 228 IPC and Section 346 Crl.P.C. The Commission having been vested with the adjudicatory powers, persons with judicial background alone can be appointed as Chairperson. The qualification for appointment of Chairperson having prescribed knowledge in Law, apart from dealing with problems relating to Engineering, Finance, Commerce, Economics and Management, the State Government is duty bound to appoint the Chairperson only from the sitting or retired High Court Judge for maintaining the independence of the Forum. The learned counsel also submitted that under section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, judicial power is provided for the Commission and as per Regulation 43, the Commission is empowered to review its own orders and review power can be given only to the judicial body. The Civil Court jurisdiction having been ousted under section 145 of the Act, the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is the substitution of the Civil Court and therefore it is imperative on the part of the Government to appoint Chairperson of the Commission from one among the sitting or retired Judge of the High Court. The Executive Control over judicial determination is not permissible as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125.
9. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the statutory provision viz., Section 84(1), which empowers the Government to appoint the Chairperson other than a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court as Chairperson. The learned Advocate General submitted that reliance cannot be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on (2013) 1 SCC 745 (Namit Sharma v. Union of India) as the operation of paragraphs 108.8 and 108.9 of the Judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court in Review Petition(C)No.2309 of 2012 in W.P.(C)No.210 of 2012 by order dated 16.4.2013. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the qualification and functions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority under The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; and Securities and Exchange Board of India under The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act, 1992) are similar to the qualification and functions stated in the Electricity Act, 2003. The authorities under the above enactments are also to have knowledge in Law, apart from other technical aspects and similar functions are being discharged by the said Commission/Board and the said Commission/Board are also vested with the power as Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure as in this case, and the said Commission/Board, even though are discharging certain adjudicatory powers, are not headed by the retired/sitting Judge of the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in contending that the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Regulatory Commission having been vested with some adjudicatory powers, the same must be headed by a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court and it is open to the Government to select the Chairperson through a Selection Committee, i.e., a person who is other than a sitting or retired High Court Judge, and discretion is vested with the Government either to select the Chairperson under section 84(1) or under 84(2), and if a sitting or retired Judge has to be appointed as Chairperson, the consultation of the Chief Justice is required. The learned Advocate General finally argued that the petitioner has no enforceable right to compel the Government to appoint a sitting or retired Judge as Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission.
10. Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25156 of 2012 supported the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General and prayed for dismissing W.P.No.24888 of 2012 and for allowing W.P.No.25156 of 2012.
11. We have considered the rival submissions made by Mr.N.L.Rajah, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Commission and the Selection Committee; and Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Government.
12. The point arises for consideration is, whether the State Government is justified in appointing a Selection Committee for selecting Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission by G.O.Ms.No.118 Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.11.2011.
13. G.O.Ms.No.118 Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.11.2011 was issued for identifying persons to fill up the vacancy, consequent to demitting of office of the Chairperson on 2.1.2012 on his completion of five years tenure, whose term of five years expired under Section 89 of the Act. The constitution of the Selection Committee to select the Chairperson of the said Commission is provided under section 85 of the Act. As per Section 85(2) six months prior to the superannuation or end of tenure of the Chairperson or Member, Committee is to be constituted to recommend a panel for filling up the vacancy, and the Committee shall finalise the process of selection of Chairperson and Members within three months from the date on which reference is made to it, and the Committee shall recommend a panel of two names for every vacancy referred to it. Based on the said statutory power, the Government constituted the Committee for selecting a panel of Chairperson by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 30.11.2011, consisting of a retired Judge of this Court as Chairperson and two Members viz., Chief Secretary of the State and the Chairperson of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as Members.
14. The statutory provision viz., Section 84 prescribes qualification for appointment of Chairperson and Members of the State Commission, which reads as follows:
84. Qualifications of appointment of Chairperson and Members of State Commission.(1) The Chairperson and the Members of the State Commission shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have adequate knowledge of, and have shown capacity in, dealing with problems relating to engineering, finance, commerce, economics, law or management.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from amongst persons who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court :
Provided that no appointment under this sub-section shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of that High Court.
(3) The Chairperson or any other Member of the State Commission shall not hold any other office.
(4) The Chairperson shall be the Chief Executive of the State Commission. From the above referred provisions, particularly Section 84(1) it is clear that persons of ability, integrity and standing, who have adequate knowledge and have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to engineering, finance, commerce, economics, law or management are qualified for appointment as Chairperson and Members of the State Commission. Thus, it is clear that a person well-versed in law alone need not be appointed as Chairperson. However, section 84(2) empowers the State Government to appoint a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court and in that event, consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court is required. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the qualifications prescribed for appointment under section 84(1). It is well settled in law that the Court is not entitled or expected to issue any direction contrary to the statutory provision, i.e., in violation of law.
15. The Judgment relied on by the petitioner viz., (2013) 1 SCC 745 (Namit Sharma v. Union of India) directed the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners only from among the sitting or retired Judges, and the said judgment was recalled by order dated 3.9.2013 in the Review Petition filed by the Union of India and the said decision is reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 (Union of India v. Namit Sharma). Section 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 prescribe qualification for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, who shall also be experienced in law. There also similar power to enquire as a Civil Court under the provisions of CPC is permitted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act to make representation to the President or Governor, as the case may be, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners by indicating their eminence in public life, knowledge in particular field, experience, etc., with further direction that whenever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that indirect questions of law is to be decided in a manner coming up before the Information Commission, he will ensure that the matter is heard by the Information Commissioner, who has wide knowledge and experience in the field of Law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner can no longer rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 745 (Namit Sharma v. Union of India) as the judgment is inoperative.
16. The learned Advocate General is justified in comparing the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and SEBI Act, 1992. In the said enactments also similar qualification viz., knowledge in law is required for the Chairperson of the Commission/Board and the said authorities are also vested with Civil Court powers while deciding the issues referred. It is relevant to note that insofar as SEBI is concerned, the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal alone shall be the retired or sitting Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.
17. Similarly, in this case, for the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal under the Electricity Act, 2003, the qualification prescribed is a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. Therefore, the appeals to be preferred against the orders of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission must be heard by the Appellate Tribunal headed by a person with judicial eminence. In such view of the matter the learned Advocate General is justified in comparing the other enactments to justify the action of the Government.
18. Similar issue arose before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.9283 of 2008 dated 31.7.2008, wherein an argument was advanced to the effect that the retired Judge of the Gujarat High Court should be appointed as Chairperson of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission of Gujarat. The Gujarat High Court considering the very same statutory provision viz., Section 85(1), in paragraph 12 held thus, "12. The next question is whether the State Government is bound to appoint a sitting or a former Judge of this Court as Chairperson. Having carefully examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 82 to 85, we find substance in the submission made by the learned Advocate General that it is not mandatory for the State Government to appoint either a sitting judge or a former Judge of this Court as the Chairperson of the State Commission. The non-obstante Clause in sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act, and even the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 85 of the Act merely enable the State Government to appoint a sitting or a retired Judge of the High Court as the Chairperson of the State Commission and in such a contingency, the procedure of constituting a Selection Committee headed by a former Judge of the High Court and the Selection Committee recommending a panel of two names, is not required to be followed. That does not, however, mean that the State Government is obliged to appoint only a sitting or a retired Judge of the High Court as the Chairperson of the State Commission."
The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court has not been appealed and therefore the said judgment holds good even today. We respectfully agree with the said judgment.
19. The learned Advocate General also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715 (West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESE Ltd.) which arose under the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 and contended that the Supreme Court in the said judgment thought it fit to state that it would be more appropriate and effective if a statutory appeal is provided to similar expert body for deciding various questions, which are on fact and technical to get appropriate consideration in the first appellate stage. Based on the said judgment only the Central Government enacted Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) and constituted the Appellate Tribunal, whose Chairperson shall be a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court.
20. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) arose in cases where constitutional validity of Part I-B and I-C of the Companies Act, 1956, providing for constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was challenged. The said Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal taking note of the powers to be exercised by the said authorities held that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal divesting the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in Company Law matters require appointment of Judicial Member. In this case the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is vested with the following functions as per Section 86 of the Act.
"86. Functions of State Commission. (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:
(a) determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State:
Provided that where open access has been permitted to a category of consumers under Section 42, the State Commission shall determine only the wheeling charges and surcharge thereon, if any, for the said category of consumers;
(b) regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the generating companies or licensees or from other sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within the State;
(c) facilitate intra-State transmission and wheeling of electricity;
(d) issue licences to persons seeking to act as transmission licensees, distribution licensees and electricity traders with respect to their operations within the State;
(e) promote cogeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution licensee;
(f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration;
(g) levy fee for the purposes of this Act;
(h) specify State Grid Code consistent with the Grid Code specified under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 79;
(i) specify or enforce standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by licensees;
(j) fix the trading margin in the intra-State trading of electricity, if considered, necessary;
(k) discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The State Commission shall advise the State Government on all or any of the following matters, namely:
(i) promotion of competition, efficiency and economy in activities of the electricity industry;
(ii) promotion of investment in electricity industry;
(iii) reorganisation and restructuring of electricity industry in the State;
(iv) matters concerning generation, transmission, distribution and trading of electricity or any other matter referred to the State Commission by that Government.
(3) The State Commission shall ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its functions.
(4) In discharge of its functions, the State Commission shall be guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan and tariff policy published under Section 3.
For Disclaimer, see under Help."
From the perusal of the functions assigned to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, we are of the view that the adjudicatory power is very minimal to the State Commission when compared to National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. As stated supra, the orders of the State Commission are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal, which is to be headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court, serving or retired. The said judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) is referred in the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 (Union of India v. Namit Sharma) and distinguished the same and upheld the power of the Government in appointing persons other than sitting or retired Judges as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs).
21. In the light of the above findings, we are unable to see any reason to quash the impugned order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118 Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.11.2011 and W.P.No.24888 of 2012 challenging the said Government Order is hereby dismissed. Consequently, W.P.No.25156 of 2012 filed praying for a direction to complete the process of appointment of Chairperson to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission is allowed with a direction to complete the process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No (R.K.A., CJ) (N.P.V.,J) Internet :Yes/No 7th February, 2014 Vr The Hon'ble Chief Justice & N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J Vr Pre-Delivery Common Order in W.P.Nos.24888 & 25156/2012 7-2-2014