IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19356 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 13, 2010. M/s R.K.Machine Tools Ltd. .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satbir Singh Kadnoria, Advocate, for Mr.P.K.Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Industry is aggrieved at the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent-PSEB authorities against the order dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, has been allowed on an erroneous assumption as if the demand was raised by the P.S.E.B. in the year 1993 and the petitioner-consumer approached the Chief Inspector, Electrical, in the year 2002 only, i.e. after a gap of nine years. The documents on record would reveal that the petitioner firstly filed a Civil Suit on 8.3.1993, which was dismissed on 30.9.1999 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the C.W.P.No .19356 of 2008 2 Dispute Settlement Committee, P.S.E.B. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Disputes Settlement Committee in the year 2000 but withdrew the same and then filed a petition under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 before the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab on 16.5.2002 which was allowed vide order dated 8.1.2008. It may thus be seen that the petitioner has been pursuing one or the other remedy, may be erroneously chosen, it is not a case where the petitioner kept on sitting at home and allowed the grass to grow under its feet. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the appellate order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-9) is set-aside and the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the respondent-authorities afresh and in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to furnish a bank guarantee for the balance disputed amount, to the satisfaction of the authorities. Dasti. August 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE