JUDGMENT :- 1. The present Writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Fourth Respondent dated 25.11.2010 made in Petitioner’s Complaint dated 23.7.2010 in Case No.30 so as to quash the same. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner-Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacturing yarn. As the First Respondent-Board was unable to supply sufficient quantity of power from April 2007 the Petitioner was not able to run the Company. As a result, the Petitioner was not able to run the Company. As a result, the Petitioner-Company became sick and moved an Application also before the BIFR. Subsequently, BIFR declared the Petitioner as sick unit by order dated 1.5.2008 and appointed IDBI as operating agency. The said scheme is under preparation. Therefore, there is a bar under Section 22(1) of the SICA for recovery of money under any head. However, the Third Respondent passed an order on 29.6.2010 directing the Petitioner to pay the excess charges for evening peak hour excess consumption for the period from 28.8.2009 to 4.9.2009. This levy was made after two years. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed the Complaint about the Third Respondent before the Fourth Respondent on 23.7.2010. After receiving the Complaint made by the Petitioner against the order passed by the Third Respondent, the same was also registered under Register No.30. But, unfortunately, the Third Respondent who has passed the order is sitting in the Consumer Grievance Redressal forum as Chairman and presided over the Redressal Forum and passed the impugned order, hence the said order is under challenge on the ground that the Third Respondent has no authority to preside over the Redressal Forum. Though this was brought to the notice of the Redressal Forum, ignoring the same that no man can be a judge of his own cause, violating the Principles of Natural Justice, passed the impugned order. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought for setting side the impugned order on the ground that the Petitioner’s right to Appeal has been completely taken away. Not only that the order passed by Fourth Respondent, namely, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has violated the basic principle that no man can be a judge of his own cause. 3. Not only that the order passed by Fourth Respondent, namely, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has violated the basic principle that no man can be a judge of his own cause. 3. In reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, after fairly conceding the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that if the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Fourth Respondent to form a constitution of the Redressal Forum without the presence of the Third Respondent, then that will meet the ends of justice. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the impugned order challenged by the Petitioner is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. However, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board’s directed to constitute the Redressal Forum without the presence of the Third Respondent who has already passed the present impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the Petitioner shall be given reasonable opportunity while disposing the Petitioner’s Appeal. 5. With this observation, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 are also disposed of.