Jayanta Kumar Biswas ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order of one sri P. K. Bagchi, Chief Engineer (Commercial) of West Bengal State electricity Board dated February 10. 2005 affirming the order of final assessment made by him in the capacity of assessing officer on february 21, 2003. ( 2 ) THE impugned order dated February 10. 2005 has been made by sri P. K. Bagchi in the capacity of the appellate authority empowered to entertain and decide the appeal against an order of final assessment made by the assessing officer under the then general conditions of supply of the Board. There is no dispute that before his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Commercial) Sri Bagchi had been working as Deputy Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Board, and that in such capacity the order of final assessment was made by him on February21, 2003. ( 3 ) ADVOCATE for the petitioners contends that appeal preferred by his client did not receive any actual consideration in the safe hands of an independent appellate authority, since the gentleman who acted as the assessing officer, also acted as the appellate authority simply because by the time the appeal came to be filed and decided he got promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Commercial), and as such became empowered to entertain and decide an appeal against the order of final assessment made by the assessing officer in terms of the then general conditions of supply of the Board. ( 4 ) AS to the identity of the person, advocate for the Board finds little to say. He says that apparently powers of the two authorities (the assessing officer and the appellate authority) were exercised by the same person. He points out that the order of the appellate authority dated February 10, 2005 has not been questioned by taking a specific ground that Sri Bagchi should not have acted as the appellate authority when the appeal was against an order made by him in the capacity of assessing officer. He further submits that the petitioners did not raise any objection to the exercise of power of the appellate authority by Sri bagchi. His argument is that the petitioners rather submitted to the authority of Sri Bagchi. He further submits that the petitioners did not raise any objection to the exercise of power of the appellate authority by Sri bagchi. His argument is that the petitioners rather submitted to the authority of Sri Bagchi. ( 5 ) FROM the then general conditions of supply, I find that Chief engineer (Distribution) and Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Board were the two authorities empowered to exercise the power of the appellate authority in an appeal against an order of the assessing officer. ( 6 ) I find substantial force in what advocate for the petitioners says. I fully agree with him that appeal preferred by the petitioners did not receive any consideration in the safe hands of an independent appellate authority. The same person who acted as the assessing officer acted once again as the appellate authority, and in the process he affirmed his own order in exercise of power of the appellate authority. In such a situation, in my view, the petitioners need not establish that the person exercising the power of the appellate authority was actually biased. The test of bias, as is known, is a real likelihood of bias. ( 7 ) I am unable to accept the argument of advocate for the Board that there was no real likelihood of bias in this case. The likelihood of bias, on the facts of the case, not only cannot be ruled out, but also cannot be said to be a remote one. ( 8 ) NEEDLESS to say that if the person who makes an order in exercise of power of an original authority entertains and decides an appeal against such order, on the ground that he is lawfully appointed to act as the appellate authority, then no person of reasonable prudence can expect an unbiased exercise of power of the appellate authority. The power exercised in such a case simply becomes an exercise of power of review. ( 9 ) I am unable to agree with advocate for the Board that since no specific ground has been taken in the writ petition that Sri Bagchi should not have decided the appeal, the petitioners should not be permitted to take the point. ( 10 ) THE impropriety of exercise of power by Sri Bagchi is apparent on the face of the records. ( 10 ) THE impropriety of exercise of power by Sri Bagchi is apparent on the face of the records. From the two orders (the order of final assessment and the impugned order of the appellate authority) it is apparent that Sri Bagchi exercised power of both the authorities. This being the admitted position appearing from the records accompanying the writ petition itself, I think a bad precedent will be set, if the wrong is not set right. In my opinion, such a question, though not specifically taken in the pleadings, when argued, should be considered by the Court. ( 11 ) I am also unable to agree with advocate for the Board that since the petitioners participated in the proceedings before Sri Bagchi, they should not be permitted to raise the question of propriety of exercise of power by him as appellate authority in the case. If what is contended by advocate for the Board is accepted, then this Court will be putting its stamp of approval to the order which is vitiated by gross impropriety in the matter of exercise of power of the appellate authority. ( 12 ) APPEAL of the petitioners was to be decided by an independent appellate authority by applying his mind and reappreciating and reassessing the evidence on record. The appellate authority was to reach an independent conclusion. All these things, needless to say, are eloquently absent, and expectedly so, in the impugned order made by sri Bagchi in the capacity of appellate authority. ( 13 ) TRUE it is that by the time the appeal came to be filed Sri Bagchi got promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Commercial) and as such became empowered to entertain and decide a similar appeal. But since the appeal was against his own order, propriety demanded that he recused himself and referred the matter to the competent authority for assigning the appeal to the other appellate authority who was available for entertaining and deciding similar appeal against order of the assessing officer under the then general conditions of supply of the board. But since the appeal was against his own order, propriety demanded that he recused himself and referred the matter to the competent authority for assigning the appeal to the other appellate authority who was available for entertaining and deciding similar appeal against order of the assessing officer under the then general conditions of supply of the board. ( 14 ) I am therefore of the view that the impugned order dated february 10, 2005 should be set aside and the appeal preferred by the petitioners should be decided afresh by any other appellate authority except Sri P. K. Bagchi, if he is still one of the appellate authorities under the then general conditions of supply of the Board. ( 15 ) IN terms of various orders made in the proceedings arising out of this writ petition several amounts have been deposited by the petitioners as against the finally assessed amount (Rs. 1,33,76,614/- ). In my opinion, it will not be just and reasonable to direct refund of any amount at the present moment, since appeal preferred by the petitioners is to be decided afresh. I think purpose of justice will be served if an order is made that payment so long made by the petitioners shall abide by the result of the appeal preferred by them before the appellate authority in terms of the then general conditions of supply of the Board. ( 16 ) FOR these reasons I set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority dated February 10, 2005 and allow the writ petition to this extent. ( 17 ) I direct the respondents to ensure that appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of final assessment of Sri P. K. Bagchi, deputy Chief Engineer (Commercial) dated February 21, 2003 is decided afresh by the appellate authority. It is made clear that Sri P. K. Bagchi, if he is still one of the appellate authorities, shall not decide the appeal, and that in such case the appeal shall be assigned to the other appellate authority appointed in terms of the then general conditions of supply of the Board. The appeal shall be decided after giving the petitioners and the Board reasonable opportunity to present their respective cases before the appellate authority. The authority shall give a reasoned decision after considering and dealing with all the grounds taken by the petitioners in their appeal. The appeal shall be decided after giving the petitioners and the Board reasonable opportunity to present their respective cases before the appellate authority. The authority shall give a reasoned decision after considering and dealing with all the grounds taken by the petitioners in their appeal. It is made clear that all payments made by the petitioners in connection with the assessment proceedings shall abide by the result of the order appellate authority to be given now in compliance with these directions. It is expected that parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournment before the appellate authority, and that the appellate authority shall give the decision as expeditiously as possible. ( 18 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to make any order for costs. Hence it is ordered that there shall be no order for costs in the writ petition. Writ petition allowed.