( 1. ) THE petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs :

(i) for a declaration that Sections 2 (j), 3, 4 and 5 of the M. P. Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 (for short v. S. Act) are ultravires as these sections are inconsistent with Sections 84 and 85 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Central Act or electricity Act) and therefore, stood repealed under Section 185 of the Electricity Act. (ii) for a declaration that the post of Chairman of M. P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission be declared as vacant. (iii) For a direction to first respondent to appoint the Chairman of the said Commission in accordance with Sections 84 and 85 of the Electricity Act. The petitioners also contend that the continuance of the fourth respondent who is not a sitting or a retired High Court Judge but who is a retired Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh on the post of Chairperson of the Commission is illegal on the ground that the said post can be held only by a person who is a sitting or a retired High Court Judge having regard to the provision of the Electricity Act

.

( 2. ) THE second respondent State of M. P. has filed its return. The third respondent Commission and the fourth respondent Chairperson of the Commission have filed a separate joint return. They have denied the contentions of the petitioner. They stated that initially the Commission was constituted under Section 17 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (for short old Regulatory Commission Act ). The first Chairperson of the Commission appointed under the old Regulatory Commission Act was a retired Judge of the High Court. On coming into force of V. S. Act with effect from 3-7-2001, the said Commission continued to function, by virtue of the saving clause in Section 60 of the V. S. Act. Thereafter, the fourth respondent was appointed under Section 5 of the V. S. Act. They contend that the Sections 2 (j), 3, 4 and 5 of the V. S. Act are not inconsistent with Section 84 or 85 of the Electricity Act. They submit the appointment of fourth respondent as Chairman of the Commission by notification dated 11-3-2002 under the provisions of V. S. Act.

( 3. ) IN order to appreciate the controversy raised by the petitioners the relevant provisions of the enactments referred, are extracted below :- The Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998: Section 17. Establishment and incorporation of State Commission. (

1) The State Government may, if it deems fit, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish, for the purposes of this Act, a Commission for the State to be known as the (name of the State) Electricity Regulatory Commission. (2) The State Commission shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and shall, by the said name, sue or be sued. (3) The head office of the State Commission shall be at such place as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (4) The State Commission shall consist of not more than three members including the Chairperson. (5) The Chairperson and the Members of the State Commission shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have adequate knowledge of, and have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to engineering, finance, commerce, economics, law or management. (6) The Chairperson and the Members of the State Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee referred to in Section 18. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (6), the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from amongst persons who is or has been a Judge of a High Court: Provided that no appointment under this sub-section shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of that High Court. (8) The Chairperson shall be the C