- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.
(2.) PERUSED the record. While disposing of a writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 2926 vide the judgment and order dated 2-2-1995 a Division Bench of this Court had directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Regulation 23 (2) of the U. P. Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations 1984 be decided by the Superintending Engineer, the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from the date of the filing of the appeal. The Superintending Engineer, the respondent No. 2 disposed of the appeal of the petitioner directed the assessment made by the Executive Engineer. Distribution Division, Chandausi for Rs. 3,32,419. 50 by a one line order to the effect that the appeal had been carefully examined and was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order, dated 24-3-1995 the petitioner had approached this Court again seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.
(3.) THE sole contention urged in support of this writ petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner stands vitiated in law as the appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal has not disclosed any reason and has totally disregarded the statutory provisions contained in Regulation 23 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. THE assertion is that the appellate authority was bound under the law to give reason in support of its conclusions. Further assertion is that taking into consideration the nature of the controversy raised in the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner as evident from the grounds taken therein, the impugned order discloses a total non-application of mind of the real controversy raised in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the appellate authority has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with the result the petitioner was seriously prejudiced a the couldn't represent his case in support of his claim before the appellate authority.;