IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19363 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 28, 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.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 by the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent- authorities against the order dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, has been allowed on an erroneous premise that the P.S.E.B. had raised the demand in the year 1995 but the petitioner- consumer approached the Chief Inspector, Electrical, belatedly in the year 2002 only, i.e. after a gap of seven years. The documents on record clearly reveal that the petitioner firstly filed a Civil Suit on 27.9.1995 which it withdrew on 18.9.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application C.W.P.No .19363 of 2008 2 before the Disputes Settlement Committee in the year 2000 but withdrew that also 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 would thus be seen that the petitioner has been before one or the other Forums, may be erroneously chosen, and it cannot be outrightly said that it kept sitting silent 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-8) 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 respondent-authorities. Dasti. September 28, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE