2.1 In this behalf reliance is placed on the proceeding sheet of CERC dated 20.12.2016. In support of aforesaid contention it is also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that CERC has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute which is the subject matter of the petition filed before it as the dispute raised arises between a- power generator, that is, respondent No.2 herein and the writ petitioner, which /trades in power. For this purpose, Mr. Poovayya, who appears for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to Section, 86{4)(0: and Section 79(I)(a) to (e) and (f) of the Electricity Act (heteafler referied tpi'.as' Act"). Section 86(1 )(f) is cited by Mr. Poovayya to contrast indjie-Ian employed in Section V4(i)(f). , 'v :::r: V 2.2 It is the contention of learned counsel that Section 86 (l)(f) of the 2003 Act, sets out the powers of the State Commission^ whild^eetion 79 of the very same act sets out the powers of the Central Commissjpii.'^'^,: ^ 2.3 Learned counsel says that a periisal dl t&eJprovi various sub clauses of Section 79(1) would show that the 'i3[isp]^^;^&h(d5/^p6tai^ • between the writ petitioner and respondent No.2 does not fall within the domain of CERC. 3. I may also indicate that Mn,;Pppva^a has stated th^\a suit for recovery of dues has instituted against respondent no;2-, iif'this Gouri;.'' This suit, I am told, is numbered as: CS(COMM) No.174/2016. 3.1 It is not in dispute that this suit, in the first instance, was dismissed; a situation which was retrieved with the passing of order dated 06.10.2015 by the Division Bench in RFA (OS) 93/2015. 3.2 It is the contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the suit is pending adjudication.
