ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record. 2. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the letter bearing Lr. No. CGM/O&M/APSPDCL/F/D. No. 570/21, dated 09.04.2021, of the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati. By way of the said letter, the Chief General Manager declined to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation/ex gratia for non-departmental fatal electrical accident. 3. According to the petitioner, she is wife of one late Kuruva Lingamayya, who died of electric shock in the year 2019. Earlier, the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 5185 of 2021, assailing the action on the part of the respondent-authorities in not paying minimum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulation, 2017 (for short, 'the Regulation No. 2 of 2017'). This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 04.03.2021, directing the respondents therein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the Regulation 2 of 2017 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Now, the Chief General Manager, by way of the impugned letter, rejected the claim of the petitioner by referring to clause 5 (1) and (2) of Chapter-II of the Regulation 2 of 2017. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the validity and the legal sustainability of the said communication dated 09.04.2021. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned intimation sent by the Chief General Manager is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned action is also opposed to the very spirit and object of the Regulation 2 of 2017, in general, and Chapters III and IV thereof, in particular. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned intimation is also a patent violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned intimation is also a patent violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the contrary, it is contended strenuously by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent that there is no illegality, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned action, and in the absence of the same, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court, In elaboration, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that strictly and meticulously adhering to the clauses in the Regulation 2 of 2017 only, the Chief General Manager issued the impugned intimation, declining to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation/ex gratia, as such, the said action cannot be faulted. 6. As mentioned supra, when the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 5185 of 2021 for redressal of her grievance, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of, by this Court, with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the Regulation 2 of 2017. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to certain clauses in the said Regulation 2 of 2017. Chapter III of the said Regulation, containing clauses 6 to 17, deals with the aspect of compensation, and Chapter IV thereof, containing clauses 18 to 32, deals with the procedure which needs to be adhered to, while deciding the said issue of payment of compensation. 7. According to clause 6 of the said Regulation, the compensation payable for loss of human life as a result of an electrical accident shall be Rs. 5,00,000/- per person. According to clause 14, which deals with Assessment of Compensation, the quantum of compensation payable in respect of death or injury to a human being or an animal or injury to property shall be arrived at, by the Chairman and Managing Director of the licensee concerned, on such information, material and evidence considered by him to be relevant and collected by him in such manner as deemed appropriate and feasible. Proviso to said clause 14 also enables the persons affected to place such information, material and evidence on all factors relevant to an acceptable assessment of compensation before the Chairman and Managing Director of the licensee concerned, and said proviso also obligates the Chairman and Managing Director to consider the same in arriving at the quantum of compensation payable. It is also evident from clause 15 of the Regulation 2 of 2017 that the right of any person to get compensation under the Regulation shall not affect the right of such person under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force. But, the said clause mandates that the amount payable under the Regulation 2 of 2017 shall be given credit to, while fixing compensation under other enactments. 8. Chapter IV of the Regulation 2 of 2017 deals with the procedure. Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of the Regulation 2 of 2017, which are highly relevant for adjudication of the issue in the present Writ Petition, read as under: "18. Occurrence report of an Electrical Accident: In addition to and independent of the intimation of accident to be sent under Rule 3 of the Intimation of Accidents (Form and Time of Service of Notice) Rules, 2012 made under G.O. Ms. No. 7, Energy (Services) Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.02.2012, the Additional Assistant Engineer or the Assistant Engineer of the licensee concerned shall send a report through a special messenger to the Divisional Engineer concerned forthwith on the knowledge of an electrical accident in the form set out in Annexure-I to this Regulation so as to reach the said Divisional Engineer within twenty four hours of the electrical accident. 19. Enquiry Report: The Divisional Engineer shall, within 15 days from the receipt of a report of an electrical accident, submit a detailed report through proper channel to the Chairman and Managing Director of the licensee concerned after conducting a detailed enquiry into the said accident and the report of the Divisional Engineer shall also make specific recommendation on the quantum of compensation and persons entitled to the same. 20. 20. Verification and Final Orders: (i) The Chairman and Managing Director of the licensee may cause verification of the contents of the occurrence report of the Additional Assistant Engineer or Assistant Engineer and the Enquiry Report of the Divisional Engineer, by himself or through such other officer of the licensee, he may duly authorize in this behalf and assess the compensation in the manner provided by clause 14 above. (ii) The Chairman and Managing Director of the licensee may thereupon pass final orders determining the quantum of compensation payable and the persons entitled to the same, namely the dependents of the deceased person or the injured person or the owner of the animal or the property, as the case may be. (iii) Such verification, assessment and passing of final orders on any compensation payable and the persons to whom it is payable shall be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of a report from the Divisional Engineer. Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing, such verification and final orders may be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the enquiry report from the Divisional Engineer." 9. Clause 21 of the Regulation 2 of 2017 also obligates the authorities to communicate the copy of the final orders to the claimants and the persons entitled. Clause 22 of the Regulation obligates payment of compensation within 15 days from the date of passing the final order by the Chairman and Managing Director. Clause 29 of the Regulation enables a person aggrieved by the final orders of the Chairman and Managing Director to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and further to Ombudsman. 10. It is very much evident from a reading of the above clauses of the Regulation 2 of 2017 that the authority competent to pass final orders on the aspect of compensation is the Chairman and Managing Director. But, in the instant case, instead of the Chairman and Managing Director, to whom the representation was made by the petitioner, the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati issued the impugned communication, rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. It is also very much evident from a reading of the impugned communication that the authorities did not adhere to the mandatory procedure stipulated under Chapter IV of the Regulation 2 of 2017. It is also very much evident from a reading of the impugned communication that the authorities did not adhere to the mandatory procedure stipulated under Chapter IV of the Regulation 2 of 2017. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to arrive at the conclusion that the impugned communication suffers not only from the infirmity of inherent lack of jurisdiction but also suffers from violation of mandatory procedure stipulated under the Regulation 2 of 2017. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be examined afresh by the authority concerned i.e. the Chairman and Managing Director, strictly in accordance with the Regulation 2 of 2017 and procedure contemplated therein. 11. When the aspect of non-impleadment of the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati as respondent in the Writ Petition, is pointed out by this Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inadvertently, the said authority is not impleaded as respondent in the Writ Petition, though the Company by itself is shown as respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to suo motu order impleadment of the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati, as 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati is impleaded as 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside Lr. No. CGM/O&M/APSPDCL/F/D. No. 570/21, dated 09.04.2021, of the Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL, Vidyuth Nilayam, Corporate Office, Tirupati-2nd respondent herein and the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent corporation shall examine and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate action, in the matter strictly in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulation, 2017 and procedure contemplated therein. It is made clear that the entire exercise, as indicated supra, including passing of the final order by the Chairman and Managing Director as per the Regulation 2 of 2017, shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.