Markandey Katju, C.J.

1. Heard Mr.S.Rajeswaran, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The writ appeal has been filed against an interim order of a learned single Judge dated 19.7.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.22978 of 2005.

3. The writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter No. SE/ Mettur/EDC/ HT/ASST.2/F. HTSC.NO. 110/D/ 2005 dated 6.7.2005 quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner industry having HTSC No.110 to pay arrears of consumption charges of Rs.35,03,246/- in 10 monthly instalments with Belated Payment Surcharge (Interest).

4. By the impugned interim order, the learned single Judge passed an order directing payment of 50% of the impugned demand within four weeks and the remaining amount was stayed.

5. It is well settled that a writ of certiorari lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record vide, Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. Commissioner, AIR 1958 SC 398 (412), Ambika Mills Limited Vs. Bhatt, AIR 1961 SC 970 (973), Union of India Vs. Ghaus Mohd., AIR 1961 SC 15