M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant W.A. (MD) No. 891 of 2017 as against the order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 16295 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Appellants/Respondents have filed the present W.A. (MD) No. 892 of 2017 as against the order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4831 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. Earlier, this Court, while passing the common order in W.P. (MD) No. 16295 of 2012 dated 22.03.2017, wherein, in paragraph No. 12, it is observed as under:

“12. The clarificatory order has been produced before me. It does not restrict its operation with regard to the period. Being a clarificatory order it can only be retrospective unless it is made expressly prospective. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is basically an agriculturist and even assuming that the petitioner was doing fish culture he was doing it as an allied activity along with agriculture. Therefore, the clarificatory order issued by the Regulatory Commission dated 24.12.2012 would apply to the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that there can be no charge of theft of energy or different user in so far as the impugned demand is