IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18862 of 2008. Date of Decision: 30th March, 2009. Darshan Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate Versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. S.S.Virk, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 9.1.2008 [Annexure P-13] passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 2.8.2006 of the Assistant Engineer, PSEB, Cantt Sub Division, Bathinda, has been dismissed being time barred. The undisputed facts on record reveal that a demand order asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.65,540/- was passed by the Assistant Engineer, PSEB, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda on 2.8.2006. The petitioner deposited 1/3rd of the said amount under protest and preferred an appeal before the Dispute Settlement Committee within the prescribed period of limitation. While the matter was pending before the said Committee, the State Government issued a notification dated 17.10.2006 constituting a new Redressal Forum, in terms whereof Sub Divisional Officer [Civil] has been notified as the Appellate Authority. Normally, the petitioner's appeal pending before the Dispute Settlement Committee ought to have been transferred to the new Appellate Authority for decision on merits. It appears that the Chief Engineer, PSEB issued a circular dated 4.5.2007 informing the constitution of the new Appellate Authority and pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a fresh appeal on 12.9.2007. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority being barred by limitation. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In the light of the above noticed undisputed facts, it would be far fetched to say that the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of appeal within the stipulated time or that he has been negligent in pursuing the same. Contrary to it, the respondents were obligated to ensure the transfer of all the appeals pending before the Dispute Settlement Committee to the newly constituted Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, it should be the endeavour of every quasi judicial authority to decide a lis on merits instead of rejecting it on hyper- technical grounds. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 9.1.2008 is set aside and the matter if remitted to the Appellate Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits as early as possible and preferably within four months. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 26.5.2009. March 30, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE