ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. All these Writ Petitions raising similar issues have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The Writ Petitions can be classified into three groups. The first group are the Writ Petitions filed for issue of a writ of quo warranto against private respondents, namely, Chairman and Members of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). This group consists of W.P. (C) No. 4100 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 2190 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 21853 of 2014. In W.P. (C) No. 4100 of 2012 apart from challenging the appointment of Members of the Commission, petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the State Government to appoint the petitioner as a Member of the Commission.

3. In the second group there are only two Writ Petitions being W.P. (C) Nos. 19551 and 22794 of 2012. In both the Writ Petitions apart from the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, a prayer for quashing the tariff order dated 25.07.2012 issued by the Commission has also been made. The third group consists of the rest of the Writ Petitions where the petitioners have challenged the tariff order dated 25.07.2012.

4. For deciding all these Writ Petitions, it shall be sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in W.P. (C) No. 19551 of 2012 in which Writ Petition pleadings are complete. The said Writ Petition is being treated as the leading Writ Petition. Pleadings in W.P. (C) No. 22905 of 2012 also need to be separately noted since the petitioner therein challenges the tariff order dated 25.07.2012 on several grounds. Facts of some more Writ Petitions shall also be noted as necessary.

5. Facts and pleadings in W.P. (C) No. 19551 of 2012 are: Petitioner is a consumer of electric energy in the State of Kerala. He claims to be engaged in a business for which consumption of electricity is necessary. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the composition of the Commission as well as the fixation of electric energy charges by the Commission. Petitioner has arrayed Shri Parameswaran, respondent No. 5 Member of the Commission and Shri Mathew George, respondent No. 6 Member of the Commission. Petitioner's case in the Writ Petition is that the 5th respondent, for a long time, was functioning as Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, "the KSEB") and thereafter as Electricity Ombudsman. The 5th respondent is getting pension from the KSEB. For the 6th respondent it is pleaded that he is functioning as Member, Finance in the KSEB. He being in charge of managing financial affairs of the Board has deep interest in the financial well being of the KSEB. It is pleaded that according to Section 85(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Act") no person who have financial or other interest which is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as Chairman and Member shall be recommended and selected as such. It is pleaded that respondents 5 and 6 are wholly ineligible to function as Members of the Commission by the reason of principle of bias and likely prejudice, which will affect their function as Members in determining the tariff. In view of the above, any decision rendered by respondents 5 and 6 in that capacity should be declared as void, inoperative and unenforceable. Respondents 5 and 6 participated in the decision making process from March 2012 to August 2012. The KSEB has filed a petition for refixing the existing tariff for realisation of an additional amount of Rs. 1560.40 crores which petition was submitted on 29.03.2012 for revision of tariff. Public hearing was conducted on the application in which consumers and various other organizations were heard but ineligibility and incapacity of respondents 5 and 6 who are functioning as Members could not be pointed out by anybody who participated in the meeting. The Commission proceeded to pass an order on 25.07.2012 not only permitting the application submitted by the KSEB