ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 30-7-2009 in O.P. No. 33 of 2003 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bangalore (for short, 'KERC) overruling the objection raised by the petitioner as an Advocate for Karnataka State Small Industries Association (for short, 'Association'). 2. It is seen from the record that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7-11-2008 in M.F.A. No. 3456 of 2003 and M.F.A. No. 3457 of 2003 filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited against KERC remanded the matter to reconsider the claim of the appellant in the said appeals. Pursuant to remand from this Court, KERC issued a public notice and in response to the same, the Association entered appearance before the KERC and filed objections. Before KERC, the petitioner entered appearance as an Advocate for the Association. Further the petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate made a submission to the KERC that one of the member of the KERC was a Law Officer of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and therefore he should not hear the matter. Under the impugned order KERC overruled the objection. Hence this writ petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the entire writ papers. 4. Firstly petitioner was not an objector before the KERC. On the other hand petitioner was only an Advocate to Objector-the Association. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Secondly, the impugned order discloses that petitioner made a submission as an Advocate appearing for the Association. This Association has not filed the writ petition. Thirdly, the reasons assigned by the KERC at para 4 which reads as under is in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference: "Verification of records maintained in this case reveal that the member in question has neither signed the pleadings nor appeared for the appellants. The position of the 'Law Officer' in an organisation is akin to that of a lawyer appearing for the party. The Lawyer always pleads the case of his client and will have no personal interest in the matter. It is the deciding authority which passes the order on merit and in accordance with law. It cannot be disputed that the Member who was the Law Officer of the appellants had no personal interest in the matter. The Lawyer always pleads the case of his client and will have no personal interest in the matter. It is the deciding authority which passes the order on merit and in accordance with law. It cannot be disputed that the Member who was the Law Officer of the appellants had no personal interest in the matter. The appellants undisputedly are the Government companies and the decisions are taken by its Managing Director/Board. Further he will have no contribution so far as facts are concerned, as they have to be assimilated based on the records. As 'Law Officer' he may have rendered an opinion based on the Law prevailing or may have taken action to file the application or appeal based on the decision of the Competent Authority. Merely because the Law Officer was following the cases cannot be construed as the 'Law Officer' had personal interest or has influenced a decision. We therefore overrule the objection raised for the member's presence in the decision-making". For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby rejected.