Surya Kant, J. - (1.) THE Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, vide his order/Award dated 24.6.2008 (Annexure P -5) set -aside the demand notice dated 28.7.2003 raising a demand of Rs. 5,89,206/ - by the Petitioner -Board against Respondent No. 3 -Industry.
(2.) IT is quite relevant to be noticed that the above stated demand notice was issued on 28.7.2003 and it pertains to the period w.e.f. 11.7.2000 to 29.9.2002. The consumer -Respondent No. 3 filed a petition before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 17.2.2004 which was decided by the Chief Electrical Inspector purported to be in exercise of his powers under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the 1910 Act'). The afore -stated 1910 Act stood repealed and replaced by anew Act known as the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the 2003 Act') which came into force w.e.f. 10.6.2003. Under the new Act, the Chief Electrical Inspector has been conferred no power whatsoever as it used to exist under Section 26 of the 1910 Act. The crucial question that ought to have been dealt with by the authorities below was therefore to see as to whether or not the Chief Electrical Inspector could take cognizance and invoke his powers under Section 26 of the Repealed Act in relation to a demand raised on 28.7.2003, even though it pertained to the period between the years 2000 to 2002 and in relation to which the petition was filed on 7.2.2004 only?.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that if the provisions of the 2003 Act were to be applied, the authority competent to decide the dispute would be other than the Chief Electrical Inspector. This legal aspect of the matter has been completely over -looked by the appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, who vide the impugned order dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure P -1) has rejected the Petitioner -Board's appeal by passing a cryptic order holding that "...on close perusal of the record and written arguments, it is observed that the appeal has no merits and hence, is hereby dismissed ".;