IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14778 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 08, 2010. M/s Bansal Rice Mills .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for respondents Nos.3 & 4. -.- 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) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.14778, 14780, 15571 & 15597 of 2009 as the issues involved in these cases are common in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.14778 of 2009. The petitioner-rice mills is aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner Appeals, Patiala Division, whereby the Award dated 16.1.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, has been set-aside on an appeal preferred by the P.S.E.B. against the said award. C.W.P.No .14778 of 2009 2 It may be mentioned here that earlier also the Appellate Authority had allowed the PSEB's appeals vide an ex-parte order dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure P-7) after observing as follows:- “........I have gone through the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellant and record of the case carefully. On close perusal of the arguments and record of the case, I am fully convinced with the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in his arguments that the Chief Electrical Inspector instead giving award should have checked the capacitor and as such, the award of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, is on its assumption and not real. Accordingly, I accept this appeal and set- aside the award of the C.E.I. Dated 16.1.2004.” The ex-parte appellate order was set-aside by this Court in a Civil Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) has been passed allowing the appeal with the following observations:- “......I have gone through the record of the case and written arguments filed by the counsel for the appellant carefully. On close perusal of the record and written arguments, I am fully agreed with the contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant that how the C.E.I. reached at the conclusion of the award by presumption. Accordingly, award of the C.E.I. neither is legal and nor is justified, and as such, I accept this appeal and set-aside the order of the C.E.I. under challenge.” C.W.P.No .14778 of 2009 3 It is contended that several contentions raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority have not been dealt with at all nor a self- speaking order to counter the reasons assigned by the Chief Electrical Inspector, have been given. There appears to be substance in the contention raised herein-above. In my considered view, it was imperative upon the Appellate Authority to pass a well reasoned order. For the reasons afore-stated, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Appellate Authority is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order. It shall be appreciated if the appeal is decided within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. November 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE