1. Section 176(u) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads thus:-

.“176 (2) (u)the authority to whom the appeal shall be filled under sub-section (1) of section 127”

2. The Central Government framed Rules called as Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004 which is marked at Annexure A. The Rule 3 of the said rules reads thus:-

.“3. Appellate Authority:-For the purpose of appeal under section 127, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Appellate Authority consisting of one or more persons such that one of the persons shall have knowledge of matters related to assessment of electricity charges and none of them shall be directly related to the affairs of the territorial jurisdiction of the licensee or supplier of the electricity.”

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the purpose of Section 176 (u) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) is to see that Appellate Authority to function U/s.127 of the Electricity Act; 2003 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) should be unbiased and independent person. The very purpose of Section 176(u) is defeated and diluted by the delegation of power by the Central Government to State Government under Rule 3 of the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004.

4. It is nextly contended that the Appellate Authority to be appointed should not be directly related to the affairs of the territorial jurisdiction of the licensee or supply of electricity. All the officials of the supply companies in Karnataka are the employees of the KPTCL and they are sent on deputation to supply companies. The deputation could be recalled and officials can be again re-posted to other supply companies. In that view, all the officials of the supply companies being employees of KPTCL cannot be said that they are not related to the affairs of the territorial jurisdiction of the licensee or supply companies. In that view, it is argued that the appointment of designate Superintending Engineer of MESCOM as Appellate Authority U/s 127 is bad in law and contrary to the above Rules.

5. The fact that KPTCL organization have Superintending Engineers and that there is possibility of they being deputed to all supply companies and as such they would in any way be biased, appears to be untenable contention and far fetched apprehension. The designate Superintending Engineer while dealing with the appeal is not related to the affairs of the territorial jurisdiction of other supply companies. Their possible deputation to BESCOM or other supply companies cannot be ground to disable them on the ground of bias.

6. The next contention that the Superintending Engineers are the employees of KPTCL and therefore, KPTCL has interest in territorial jurisdiction and that Superintending Engineers should not function as Appellate Authority is untenable contention. There would not be legal impediment for a Superintending Engineers, on deputation to supply companies, to function as Appellate Authority for the appeals relating to other supply companies U/s.127 of the Act.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the premises was used for manufacturing garments and electricity connection was taken for the said purpose. The petitioner for the reasons beyond control could not start garment business but he started educational institution/school. The petitioner also submitted the application informing BESCOM that he is using the electricity supply for running the school and requested to record change of purpose. The petitioner also completed the formalities of the executing agreement. But the BESCOM did not accord sanction and permit change of use. The application was pending. The officials of BESCOM were regularly visiting the premises and note the recordings of the meter. U/s 126 of the Act, the BESCOM suddenly alleged misuse of electricity and passed provisional order demanding tariff for commercial purpose and also levied the penalty and provisional bill is issued. The petitioner being