CWP No.20498 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 01.09.2010 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited ... Petitioner Versus The Appellate Authority u/s.127 of the Electricity Act Panipat and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. BS Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.VK Jindal, Advocate,for respondent No.2. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): In this writ petition challenge is made to the impugned order dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Authority, ( Panipat Operation Circle, UHBVN), Panipat. Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Authority on the appeal filed by private respondent No.2, the present petitioner (respondent before the Appellate Authority) was directed to prepare an assessment bill after making calculations. Respondent No.2 was required to pay the amount so determined within seven days from the date of order. On deposit of the amount, the present petitioner was required to restore the electricity supply to respondent No.2. It is the admitted case of the parties that this order of the Appellate Authority came to be challenged in revision before this Court. Revision came to be disposed of with the following order on 22.09.2008:- “With the consent of the parties this revision petition is disposed of with the following CWP No.20498 of 2008 -2- directions:- That in case the petitioner deposits the amount claimed by the respondents as per the modified criteria as laid down in Annexure P-5 within 7 days of the issuance of the demand, then on the receipt thereof respondents No.1 and 2 shall restore the electricity connection to the petitioner within 7 days thereafter. The demand be raised within seven days of receipt of copy of this order.” From the above, it appears that it was a consent order passed by this Court in the revision petition. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein issued Demand Notice on the basis of the Appellate Authority order, impugned in this petition. On raising of the demand notice, respondent No.2 deposited the amount with the petitioner herein. After the implementation of the order of the Appellate Authority and receiving the entire amount from respondent No.2, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the revision petition, the respondent gave up the challenge on merits to the Appellate Authority order and, thus, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the Appellate Authority order notwithstanding the same having been confirmed in revision petition. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived for the following reasons:- i) that the order of the Appellate Authority stands confirmed in the CWP No.20498 of 2008 -3- revision that too by a consent order which fact is not disputed nor the order of the Revisional Authority has been challenged in the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, the order of the Appellate Authority stands merged in the Revisional Authority order which has attained finality. ii) The petitioner has implemented the Appellate Authority's order and in implementation of this order, respondent No.2 has made payment of the entire amount. Thus, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the validity of the Appellate Authority order in any manner whatsoever. In view of the above, this petition is totally misconceived. The same is dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as costs. 01.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE