R.K. Agrawal, C.J. & N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. 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