CWP No.7634 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7634 of 2007 Date of decision: February 10, 2009. Shree Jindal Proteins Limited ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala whereby an appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) against the order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Punjab, has been allowed and the payment of Rs.1,86,665/- raised against the petitioner by the PSEB has been upheld. Suffice it to note that the petitioner had earlier challenged the above mentioned demand notice dated 15.9.1998 in a civil suit. The learned civil court directed that the petitioner's plea that the seals of the meter were CWP No.7634 of 2007 -: 2 :- intact and as such the cause of slow speed could not be attributed to it, needed to be examined by the Chief Electrical Inspector. The matter was accordingly taken to the Chief Electrical Inspector who vide his order dated 2.3.2000 accepted the petitioner's plea that the demand was unwarranted. The said order of the Chief Electrical Inspector has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal by the PSEB. The appellate authority has observed as follows:- “... The only point emphasized by him is that the consumption recorded by the new meter was less than the consumption shown by the disputed meter. Thus it was presumed by the Chief Electrical Inspector that the disputed meter was not running slow. However, the perusal of the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector nowhere indicates that on what load the consumption was recorded subsequently by the new meter. Secondly when the respondent (M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Ltd.) has not contested the issue that the disputed meter was not found slow by 3.66%. I do not see any reason for Chief Electrical Inspector to come to the conclusion that the meter in question was not running slow. It is clear that the detailed inquiry report of checking of the disputed meter has not been looked into by the Chief Electrical Inspector....” Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that though the observations made by the appellate authority are apparently relevant and go to the root of the CWP No.7634 of 2007 -: 3 :- controversy, however, the appellate authority could not hold the PSEB entitled to recover the disputed amount on that count only. In other words, the appellate authority ought to have remanded the case to the Chief Electrical Inspector to enable the latter to re-consider and pass a fresh order. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the appellate order dated 28.9.2006 as well as the previous order of the Chief Electrical Inspector dated 9.5.2000 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Punjab at Patiala to decide the petitioner's complaint afresh and in accordance with law and keeping in view the queries/observations by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 28.9.2006. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Punjab at Patiala shall decide the matter as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. February 10, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge