Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent. The first respondent issued Ext.P3 provisional order alleging unauthorised additional load in the premises of the petitioner and thereby causing financial loss to the Board. The first respondent, without considering the request of the petitioner for an adjournment for personal hearing and also without considering the contentions of the petitioner in Exts.P4 and P5 reply, passed Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.2102/12 challenging Ext.P6 order. This court allowed the writ petition vide Ext.P7 judgment and the first respondent was directed to readjudicate the matter. The petitioner was again heard in the matter on 4-2-2012. In the meanwhile, Ext.P8 bill was served on the petitioner based on the findings in Ext.P6 order which was set aside by this court. The first respondent has now passed Ext.P9 order without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner and is a mere reiteration of Ext.P6 order. The case of the petitioner is that the Ext.P9 order is passed mechanically without any application of mind and in total disregard to the specific directions of this honourable court in Ext.P7
