JUDGMENT : Hrish Tandon, J. 1. Though the challenge is made to several orders passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission on the premise of violation of principle of natural justice but after hearing the respective counsels, this Court feels that one of the directions passed therein deserves consideration. 2. Before indicating the point, this Court feels necessary to adumbrate salient facts for such limited purposes. 3. The Regulatory Commission initiated the proceeding against the petitioner as it was interested in cherry picking i.e. supplying the electricity in bulk to the heavy consumers and denying the supply of electricity to the domestic consumers. The Regulatory Commission feels that the distribution company is obliged under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the National Electricity Policy framed under Section 3 thereof which mandates all the distribution company including the deemed licensees to supply electricity to all consumers within their respective area of supply and directed the petitioner to furnish the report regarding their readiness to supply all consumers under the area of supply and also to submit the investment proposal as per the provision of the tariff regulation pertaining to establishment of the infrastructure to give electric supply to all consumers including medium and low voltage consumers. 4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, an order was passed by the Regulatory Commission on 13th August, 2016 directing the petitioner to furnish the report on readiness to supply all consumers within 15 days from the said date and also to come up with the investment proposal in accordance with the provision of the tariff regulation relating to building up the infrastructure for such supply. The extension of time was sought for on 08.06.2015 and it is not in dispute that a publication was made on 28.08.2015 at the behest of the petitioner in the widely circulated newspaper expressing their intention for infrastructure development for LV/MV supply in its command area in State of West Bengal. The Regulatory Commission took up the hearing on 30th June, 2016 and noticed that despite the directions being passed for preparation of Development Project Report (DPR) there appears to be non compliance on the part of the petitioner. The Regulatory Commission took up the hearing on 30th June, 2016 and noticed that despite the directions being passed for preparation of Development Project Report (DPR) there appears to be non compliance on the part of the petitioner. In paragraph 7 of the said order the Commission though it fit to give an opportunity to the Chairman of the petitioner to satisfy the Commission about management commitment and its implementation within the licensed area in the State of West Bengal and directed the State Chairman to present personally on the next date of hearing, which was fixed on 8th July, 2016. 5. An application was filed on 5th July, 2016 seeking dispensation of personal appearance of the Chairman of the petitioner on the said date. Though the matter was taken up on 8th July, 2016, but nothing transpires from the record that any order was passed and the next date was fixed on 11th July, 2016. It was pointed out on the said date by the Secretary of the Commission that despite the order for personal appearance of the Chairman, the representatives have come without any valid authorization which cannot be accepted as a compliance of the said direction. However, the Regulatory Commission feels that another chance be given to the Chairman to the petitioner to remain personally present for declaring the management commitment towards the implementation of the statutory obligation and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. It may be relevant to record in this regard that prior to the order dated 30th June, 2016 a notice for hearing was served upon the petitioner wherein it was indicated that if the Chairman is unable to be present personally in the hearing and wishes to be represented by someone else the representative shall have to produce Form 3 as per provisions of Regulation of 2.10.7 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2013 before the commencement of hearing. Therefore, it is clear that the Chairman of the petitioner was not obligated to remain personally present if the person duly authorized by him is competent enough to answer all the queries raised during the hearing. The Regulatory Commission was more concerned about the personal appearance of the Chairman of the petitioner than to proceed with the real disputes and the cause for which the proceeding was initiated. The Regulatory Commission was more concerned about the personal appearance of the Chairman of the petitioner than to proceed with the real disputes and the cause for which the proceeding was initiated. On 19th July, 2016 the petitioner submitted the Development Project Report of low tension supply in the West Bengal, which was duly received on 21st July, 2016. A letter was issued by the Regulatory Commission on 1st August, 2016 requesting the petitioner to submit the application for investment approval as per the provisions of the tariff regulation observing the procedure laid down in Regulations, 2013. On 28th October, 2016 when the matter was fixed for hearing before the Regulatory Commission though the DPR was on record yet the Commission was very much concerned with the personal appearance of the Chairman and proceeded to record aspersions against the said official and reiterate the stand that he should remain personally present. 7. The Writ Petition came to be filed at this stage challenging the orders and directions passed by the Regulatory Commission being violative of the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the supplementary affidavit is filed by the petitioner enclosing the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by the Regulatory Commission non deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and non appearance of the Chairman despite several orders and ultimately a further penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under Section 142 of the said Act. Apart from the same, the Commission directed the payment of Rs. 6,000/- per day in the event the default continues till the compliance is made. 8. Mr. Dhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Regulatory Commission took a preliminary objection that there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal under the said Act and therefore the instant Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 9. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the notice of hearing served upon the petitioner clearly indicates that the Chairman can authorize a person to represent him before the Regulatory Commission and it is not disputed that the authorized person all along participated in the proceeding, the order imposing the penalty and securing the personal appearance of the Chairman is punitive, harassive and violative of the principle of natural justice. 10. 10. The facts would galore that though there was a delay in filing the DPR as directed by the Regulatory Commission but ultimately the same was filed and put on record. It is an admitted position that all along the petitioner was represented as and when the dates were fixed for hearing and no default and negligence can be attributed to their conduct. There does not appear to be any justification in directing the personal appearance of a Chairman of the petitioner holding such high position. I am not unmindful of the proposition of law that if the things are required to be done in a particular manner, those should be done in such manner but equally it is true that the procedure is a handmade of justice and is not a jealous mistress. If the compliance of the directions can be secured through an authorized representative, there is no point in taking exception to non appearance of the Chairman in person. Furthermore, the notice for hearing does not contemplated the personal presence of the Chairman if the competent person duly authorized by the Chairman attends on all dates fixed for hearing of the said proceeding. All the orders passed by the Regulatory Commission give an impression in my mind that the Regulatory Commission was more swayed by the fact that the Chairman was not appearing personally than to concentrate and deal with the real cause. Imposition of penalty is an extreme measure and should only be used when there is an apparent and glaring facts for deliberate and willful non compliance of the directions. It is an extreme measure and recourse in casual and routine manner should be guarded against. 11. This Court, therefore, does not find any legality in the direction so far as it relates to the personal appearance of the Chairman of the petitioner is concerned and the imposition of penalty for non compliance. 12. The orders impugned in this Writ Petition are modified to the extent that the portion where the direction for personal appearance of the Chairman and the imposition of penalty are concerned are hereby set aside. Since, the Regulation requires an application for investment proposal to be taken out in a prescribed format, the petitioner is directed to file the same within 4(four) weeks from the date. Since, the Regulation requires an application for investment proposal to be taken out in a prescribed format, the petitioner is directed to file the same within 4(four) weeks from the date. If, such application is filed within the time indicated herein above the Regulatory Commission shall proceed with determining the tariff by observing the requirements envisaged under the relevant Regulations and Act. 13. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 14. However, there shall be no order as to costs.