M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 15.9.2006 (P -7), passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala -respondent No. 1, whereby while accepting the appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity, 'the Board '), the case has been remanded to the Chief Electrical Inspector for re -adjudication and to pass a speaking order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is carrying on the business of manufacturing duplex paper in village Hambran, District Ludhiana. One medium Supply electricity connection bearing Account No. MS 31 has been installed in the factory premises of the petitioner firm. On 1.1.1997, the Senior Executive Engineer of the Enforcement Wing of the Board inspected the business premises of the petitioner firm and checked the electric meter and found that that the electric meter was running slow by 67.8%. A report in this regard was made, which was duly received and counter signed by S. Gurcharan Singh, partner of the petitioner firm (P -1). On 9.1.1997, the electric meter was removed and the same was tested in the ME Lab on 10.1.1997. As per the report of the ME Lab, the meter was found to be correct, which fact is evident from letter dated 17.1.1997 sent by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Humbran to the Senior Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Ludhiana (P -2). On 11.2.1997, a demand notice for realisation of Rs. 2,69,312/ -was issued to the petitioner firm on the ground that the electric meter was running slow. The account was rectified w.e.f. 7/96 (P -3). The petitioner firm then filed C.W.P. No. 2409 of 1997 in this Court seeking quashing of the report dated 1.1.1997, demand notice dated 11.2.1997 and supplementary bill raised on the basis of said notice. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.4.1997 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner would file representation within 15 days before the Chief Electrical Inspector, PSEB, Patiala, who after examining the technical aspects of the matter, was to decide the same within one month thereafter. The petitioner firm was also directed to deposit half of the amount in question. The petitioner firm accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ -being half of the disputed amount and the matter was placed before the Chief Electrical Inspector. The Board also joined proceedings before the Chief Electrical Inspector, who passed an award dated 28.11.1997, by concluding that the disputed meter was correct and the Board is not liable to claim any amount from the petitioner firm (P -4). Against the award, the Board preferred an appeal under Rule 6(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala - respondent No. 1, who passed an order dated 10.2.2003 (P -5), holding that the Chief Electrical Inspector had no authority to adjudicate the controversy and set aside the award dated 28.11.1998 (P -4).
(3.) CHALLENGING the order passed by respondent No. 1, the petitioner firm again filed C.W.P. No. 4333 of 2003 in this Court. On 22.7.2005, a Division Bench of this Court set aside order dated 10.2.2003 and ordered restoration of the appeal on the file of Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala -respondent No. 1 for fresh adjudication. Now, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 15.9.2006 (P -7), remanding the matter for fresh adjudication and passing of a speaking order by the Chief Electrical Inspector. The parties were directed to appear before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 14.11.2006. The observations of respondent No. 1 in remanding the matter are discernible from para 3 of the order, which reads thus: 3. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the record of the CEI. The perusal of the order passed by CEI, nowhere indicates any reason that why he had concluded that the meter was not running slow. The consumption data as produced by PSEB after the removal of the disputed meter shows that the consumption has increased. In my opinion, this fact has not been considered by the CEI. As per law, the CEI is a technical expert to look into the fact after adjudicating the matter that how much demand shall be raised in case of disputed meter which is found running slow. In view of this, I hereby accept the appeal filed by PSEB and remand the case to CEI for re -adjudicating the same after going through the detailed report submitted by the flying squad, subsequent consumption data to explore the reasons that why the meter in question was found running slow. After adjudication of these points, a speaking order be passed indicating the reasons for the meter to be running slow; whether this slowness in any way had affected the recording of the consumption if not what could be reason for increase in consumption recorded by the new meter. Parties are directed to present in the court of CEI on 14.11.2006.;