JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No. 2 is represented by the learned AGA. 2. This writ appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned single judge in Writ petition No.29723/2017 and Writ petition Nos.31277-31278/2018 and the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in Review Petition No.465/2018 and Review Petition Nos.98-99/2019 and to dismiss the writ petition. 3. By means of the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2018, the order of 15.07.2016 passed by the Respondent No.1 in compliance of an order dated 20.04.2016 in Writ Petition No. 56261/2015 and Writ Petition Nos. 57357-58/2015, holding that the power load sanction intimation letters issued from the office, which are three in number, shall be scrupulously followed after arranging power supply to the said three layouts, was quashed and a Writ of Mandamus was issued to the Appellant No. 2 herein, who was the Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition to restore the power supply to the layouts in terms of approval letters dated 03.09.2012, 30.03.2013 and another letter of 30.03.2013, subject to the condition that, the Respondent No.1/petitioner shall comply with the conditions imposed in the approval letters. Against the aforesaid judgment of 19.07.2018, a review petition was filed, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 08.04.2019. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, as per a letter dated 12.01.2015, arranging power supplies in respect of three layouts made by the Respondent No.1 in Devanahalli, correspondingly 5515 KVA, 6699 KVA and 5322 KVA were approved by the Chief General Manager i.e. the Appellant No. 2 herein. However, The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004 , KERC Regulations, 2004 came to be amended by means of a notification issued by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission , KERC on 22.11.2016, whereby the criteria for assessment of load in a layout were amended. However, The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004 , KERC Regulations, 2004 came to be amended by means of a notification issued by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission , KERC on 22.11.2016, whereby the criteria for assessment of load in a layout were amended. The contention is that as per the amended criteria, the method of calculation of estimated load would inure to the benefit of the Respondent No.1 and as such, after correctly assessing the load requirements and in accordance with the aforesaid amendment introduced in the Regulations, the load was re-assessed in respect of the three layouts after taking into account not just the site sizes, but also street lights and common amenities. It is stated that certain calculations were left out during the previous inspection, were included in the fresh load estimates. The load estimates, as revised are in respect of each of the layouts that is respectively, 8541.18 KVA, 8778.82 KVA and 6639.46 KVA. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.03.2021, the KPTCL informed the Respondent No.1 that the committee has accorded approval for arranging power supply to an extent of 35000 KVA for electrification of the subject proposed residential layouts on self-execution basis. It was further mentioned that as per the Power Sanction Committee approval, the Respondent No.1 was required to submit consent to enable its processing in the office. 5. By a letter dated 08.03.2021, the Respondent No. 1 communicated its consent to the conditions in the letter dated 02.03.2021 and it also declared to undertake the responsibilities for all Right of Way issues during execution of the above works. Vide another letter of 02.11.2021, the Respondent No.1 consented to hand over the required land in the layout for establishing the power station. 6. The appellants issued another letter on 14.01.2022, in which, inter alia, it is mentioned that the applicant (Respondent No.1) had addressed a letter to the appellant stating that 10 to 15 houses had already been 0constructed and occupied with temporary power connections and request was made to arrange permanent power supply on 11 KVA basis on temporary basis until completion of the sub-station. Approval was communicated for arranging the LT power supply for the said proposal, subject to certain conditions. Approval was communicated for arranging the LT power supply for the said proposal, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the power supply shall be arranged for a period of one year from the date of the office letter and an undertaking would be obtained from the Respondent No.1 to complete the construction of sub-station within 12 months from the date of that letter, failing which action will be initiated, as per BESCOM norms. A progress report was required to be submitted to the office every month regarding status of establishing sub-station at the premises of the Respondent No.1. Thereafter, by means of Letter of 01.03.2023, Respondent No. 1 requested for permission to complete the sub-station within another 1 to 2 years. 7. The counsel for the respondent has referred to counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, in which, Document No. 2 is a letter dated 06.06.2023 on the subject of withdrawal of all earlier consent letters for setting up sub-stations in the three residential layouts. In that letter, the Respondent No.1 stated that the financial implication of the project was made known for the first time and therefore, the earlier consent letter is marked by suppression of material fact. It was stated that the Respondent No.1 is a non-profit housing society set up for the welfare of government employees and no funds are available to invest for execution of the transmission line and sub-station. It is for the first time on 29.05.2023 that the BESCOM informed that it would cost more than Rs.50.00 Crores to set up the sub-station. It was stated that the earlier consent letter was under duress and therefore all earlier consent letters were withdrawn. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant had acted in violation of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, which order is impugned in the present writ appeal. It is stated that the very order of 15.07.2016 which actually communicated the sanction, was quashed and therefore the appellants have resorted to a circuitous way of implementing that very order. It is further stated that the writ of mandamus issued by the learned single judge is required to be scrupulously followed by the appellants. 9. It is stated that the very order of 15.07.2016 which actually communicated the sanction, was quashed and therefore the appellants have resorted to a circuitous way of implementing that very order. It is further stated that the writ of mandamus issued by the learned single judge is required to be scrupulously followed by the appellants. 9. The Appellant No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a company within the meaning of its definition under the Companies Act, 2013 with 100% shareholding being of the State. It is stated that the Petitioner No.1 functions under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 , Act, 2003 . The matters relating to distribution are governed by the aforesaid Act, 2003 and the rules made thereunder, and the provisions of the Regulations made thereunder from time to time. The KERC Regulations, 2004 were made under the aforesaid Act of 2003. Regulation 3.2.4, as it stands, reads as under. “V-REGULATION 3.2.4. OF THE KERC REGULATIONS 16. Regulation 3.2.4. amended version of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission ( Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004 reads as under:- “3.2.4. Amended Version dated: 12.1.2006. In case of layouts/buildings/ cluster of buildings/building blocks situated in a common site requiring power supply and the total requisitioned loan in such cases is more than 7500 KVA, the developer/Applicant shall provide the space for erection of sub-station and also bear the entire charges of such a sub-station and associated lines/equipments. The work shall be carried out either by the Licensee duly recovering the charges as per estimate or by the Applicant himself through appropriate class of licensed electrical contractor by paying 10% of the cost at the estimate excluding employees cost subject to a maximum amount of Rs.15 Lakhs supervision charges to the Licensee” 10. The aspect of distribution is highly complex and technical exercise undertaken by specialists in the field, who are the various engineers and other authorities in the employ of the Petitioner No.1. The exercise for assessment of such huge loads is done taking into account various technical and other factors which would be, normally, beyond the pale of consideration of a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The exercise for assessment of such huge loads is done taking into account various technical and other factors which would be, normally, beyond the pale of consideration of a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Electricity Act itself provides for appointment or designation of an Ombudsman by the State Commission for redressal of any grievance by any consumer under the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003. In exercise of the aforesaid power under sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003 as well as other provisions of the Act, 2003, the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 , KERC Consumer Regulations, 2004 have been framed, which provide for an elaborate procedure for filing and method of addressing such complaints. 11. This Court cannot determine or direct the manner of distribution of electricity which, as aforesaid, is a highly technical exercise. Admittedly, the three layouts are enormous in size. The Layout No.1 at Bettanahally is on an area of 82 acres and 4 guntas. The Layout No.2 at Kundaragere is on an area of 91 acres and 10 guntas, and the Layout No.3 at Papanahally Kundaragere is on an area of 72 acres 27 guntas. The load assessed by the appellants for meeting the requirements of the aforesaid three Layouts, as already been noted above, has been done as per the 8 th amendment brought by the KERC Regulations, 2004 by means of a notification dated 22.11.2016. These facts are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the assessment of load done as per the amendment in the KERC Regulations, 2004, would be beneficial to the Respondent No.1 and the calculations have been made thereunder. The Respondent No.1 has conveyed its unequivocal consent for setting up of the sub-station and had also earmarked the land for it. However, quite lamely, it sought to withdraw the consent when confronted with the cost of setting up the sub-station. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court has no option, but to set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2018 passed in the writ petitions as well as the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in the review petitions, as prayed for, and to dismiss the writ petitions. 13. This writ appeal is accordingly allowed.