Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Shreyans Industries Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 19 March, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No. 259 of 2013. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 19th March, 2013.
M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd. Appellant through
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors.
Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH
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] This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's Writ Petition bearing No. 20156 of 2012 has been disposed of at the preliminary stage leaving it open to the respondent-Authorities to consider the appellant's petition, if any, pending and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
The case as set up by the appellant in the writ petition is that it had preferred an appeal to the Board Level Rules Committee [Annexure P-7] against the order dated 19.12.2003, whereby its liability was finally assessed to the tune of `19,57,616/-. The said appeal was approved by the Chairman of the erstwhile Electricity Board for consideration by the BLRC on deposit of 50% of the balance disputed amount, if any. The appellant who is said to have deposited 100% of the disputed amount [as against the requirement of 50%], instituted the subject writ petition feeling aggrieved at the fact that its appeal was still pending and no decision has been taken thereupon. It was also the case of the appellant that the Appellate Authority, namely, BLRC was disbanded and instead another Appellate Authority, i.e., Ombudsman under Section 42[7] of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been created.
Learned Single Judge disposed of the appellant's writ petition observing that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the year 2004 was sought to be assailed in a writ petition filed in the year 2012.
We find from the record that the appellant had in fact sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the Appellate Authority to decide its appeal dated 19.04.2004 [Annexure P-7].
For the reasons aforementioned, we modify the order dated 09.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge to the extent that if the appeal dated 19.04.2004 [Annexure P-7] preferred by the appellant against the recovery of `19,57,616/- imposed on it is still pending and/or is maintainable, the same be put up before the prescribed Appellate Authority who shall then decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
Disposed of. Dasti.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
March 19, 2013. ( R.P.NAGRATH )
dinesh JUDGE