CWP No.3210 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3210 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.07.2010 **** M/s. Salwan Spinners Pvt. Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Taunque, Advocate for respondents No.1 &2 Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-industry seeks quashing of the order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby, the order dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of Punjab, has been set aside. (2). A notice dated 17.04.2004 (Annexure R3) served by the PSEB authorities on the petitioner, demanding a sum of Rs.130699/- towards electricity consumption charges for the period of CWP No.3210 of 2009.doc - 2 – July, 2003 to December, 2003, gave rise to the order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector in favour of the petitioner. However, the said order has been reversed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P2) referred to above. (3). The Appellate Authority has held that since the controversy pertains to the dead meter, the Chief Electrical Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s representation/appeal. (4). Since the above-mentioned observation made by the Appellate Authority is not seriously disputed but the petitioner, at the same time, cannot be left remediless, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to submit its objections against the notice dated 17.04.2004 (Annexure R3) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same on merits by passing a speaking order. If the petitioner’s grievance is not redressed, he shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as may be available in law. If the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the demanded amount, the respondents shall not insist for deposit of the CWP No.3210 of 2009.doc - 3 – balance amount till the petitioner’s representation is decided by the Competent Authority. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.07.2010 vishal shonkar