S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7-6-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in WP No. 6348 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. ( 2 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, an order of the A. P. State Electricity Board dated 14-12-1988 was in question. By reason of the said order, the representation of the appellant dated 24-5-1988 was rejected purported to be on the basis general prescription adopted ass regards levy of additional charges. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the order of the Board is a well considered one. ( 4 ) THE matter was required to be considered by the respondent having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Hyderabad Engg. Industries Ltd. v. A. P. S. E. Board, AIR 1988 SC 985 , wherein the Apex Court clearly held that the concerned respondent being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India was required to consider the representation made by the writ petitioner. On a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition it appears that the Member Secretary has merely stated: the Board has considered in detail the representation made by you as well as the points raised by you during the personal hearing and after due consideration has ordered as follows:- (1) The additional charges prescribed by the board are worked out on the averages obtaining in the State and not with particular reference to a particular industry, even the percentages are not compensate the Board completely against transmission and transmission losses and the cost of additional capital incurred by the Board. (2) However, Board has considered your representation and your practical difficulty of procuring equipment and decided to levy additional charges from 1-3-1983 instead of from 1-3-1982 originally stipulated i. e. , extending time from six months to 18 months. (3) Kindly make arrangements for the payment of amounts due with all additional charges for delayed payment as per rules in force from time to time avoid inconvenience. The levy of additional charges for belated payment is reasonable and valid. ( 5 ) WE may notice that the representation itself is voluminous in nature. (3) Kindly make arrangements for the payment of amounts due with all additional charges for delayed payment as per rules in force from time to time avoid inconvenience. The levy of additional charges for belated payment is reasonable and valid. ( 5 ) WE may notice that the representation itself is voluminous in nature. Admittedly, an opportunity of personal hearing had also been given to the writ petitioner. It was therefore expected that the member Secretary who was exercising a jurisdiction in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court and particularly having regard to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Associated Cement companies Ltd. v. A. P. S. E. B. , 1996 (4) ALT 1011 , should have assigned sufficient and cogent reasons. He failed to do so. The impugned order shows a total non-application of mind on the part of the said Member- secretary. The impugned order, therefore, should not have been held to be well considered as was held by the learned single judge only because prior to passing of the order, the appellant was given personal hearing. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned single Judge as also the order impugned in the writ petition dated 14-12-1988 cannot be sustained, ( 6 ) IN the result, both the writ petition and the writ appeal are allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. The Chairman and Managing Director, A. P. TRANSCO (who is the successor in office of the member-Secretary) shall fix the date of hearing within three weeks from date. The appellant shall also visit the office of the Chairman and Managing Director, A. P. TRANSCO within one week wherefor the date of hearing will be fixed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.