HANSARIA - (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard learned counsel of the parties.
(2.) BASSI Cold Storage, respondent No. 1 is a consumer of electric energy supplied by the appellant Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter the Board), who is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short, the Act). The consumer aforesaid had some dispute with the Board (the details of which are not relevant for the present appeal) which ultimately came to be resolved by an Undertaking given by one Ved BASSI, who is the proprietor of the above-named cold storage. This Undertaking is dated 31-7-1979. One of the conditions of the Undertaking given by BASSI was that he would pay the current bill for electricity becoming due for consumption from August, 1979 onwards by way of a nominal sum of Rs. 2500/ - per month pending final settlement of dispute in view of the financial crises. This is contained in para 5 of the Undertaking. Respondent's case is that it started paying as per this Undertaking from the month of August, 1979 and did so till January, 1980. The power supply was, however, disconnected on 4-2-80. It is of the view that resort to disconnection had been taken to feed fat the grudge which the certain officers of the Board had against its proprietor. It, therefore, thought that present is a fit case where it can claim damages for disconnection of the electricity and to decide about the quantum of damage, it called upon the Board to appoint its arbitrator within a period of 15 days from the receipt of its letter dated 4-12-80. This was not done. Not only this, the Board approached the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala by filing an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to quash the arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent. Its case was that the dispute in question could not be the subject-matter of arbitration. The Senior Sub-Judge rejected the contention. Feeling aggrieved, the Board carried the matter in revision to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, who dismissed the petition by a short order reading as below: "Mr. Sibal learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents states that finding on issues Nos. 1 and 4 may be set aside on his concession, but otherwise the impugned order deserves to be maintained. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the lower Court on other issues. Therefore, this petition is dismissed, but the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 4 are nullified in view of the concession given by Mr. Sibal." (Emphasis supplied) Feeling aggrieved, this Court has been approached under Article 136 of the Constitution.
(3.) BEFORE examining the main contention advanced by Shri Rao on behalf of the Board, we have to clear the decks. The need for the same is because Shri Sibal, learned counsel for the respondent, has urged that the question raised in this appeal does not really arise for our determination inasmuch as while issuing notice in the revision application the High Court had done so relating to issues 1 and 4 which were "whether application has been filed by a competent person" and "whether the application is not maintainable"; and a concession having been made qua those issues before the High Court, we may not examine what had been held by the Subordinate Judge on other issues. Shri Rao contends that though it is correct that notice had been issued relating to issues 1 and 4 but the counsel for the parties had been heard by the High Court on other issues also as to which the learned single Judge simply stated he found "no infirmity"; and so, the correctness of the view taken on "other issues" do call for our consideration.;