- (1.) These are the five appeals which have been filed by Sri Vishal Dixit challenging the order dated 12.9.2002 as well as 4.10.2002 passed by the Regulatory Commission. On a specific query being put to the counsel for the appellants regarding the order dated 4.10.2002, he has stated that no order has been passed on that date but the same has wrongly been mentioned in the memo of appeal. In view of this statement, the question of limitation in challenging the order dated 12.9.2002 may also have to be seen,to find out that whether the appeals have been filed within the period prescribed.
(2.) These matters, as already observed in our order passed on earlier occasion, were filed before the learned Single Judge whereas certain matters having the same controversy and decided by the Regulatory Commission were filed before the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, prayed that all matters be taken up together and in pursuance thereof these matters which were filed before the learned Single Judge were directed to be taken up before the Division Bench alongwith other appeals on the ground that the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the valuation of the appeal which have been shown in the present appeals have wrongly been shown inasmuch the demand was of more than Rs. 5 lacs in every case but by showing the appeals undervalued, it was filed before the learned Single Judge and a blanket stay order was obtained from the court of learned Single Judge.
(3.) In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to all the appeals and for example in Appeal No.78 of 2002 in the affidavit filed alongwith the stay application, the appellant himself has stated in para 9 that the demand which was agitated before the Regulatory Commission was of Rs. 1,23,29,401=60 whereas in the memo of appeal valuation has been shown as Rs.2,04,310/-. It is not clear as from where the appellant has valued the appeal to the aforesaid amount.;