Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JJ.
M/s USV Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd and others - Respondents
CWP No. 3843 of 2015
Decided On : 06-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bipin C. Negi, Mr. Arjun Lall.
For the Respondents: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. Varun Chandel.
The importance of passing a speaking and well-reasoned order by the Appellate Authority in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Electricity Act, 2003 - Appellate Authority - Non-speaking order
Fact of the Case:
The Appellate Authority passed a non-speaking order, which was deemed improper by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order made by the Appellate Authority and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the parties and return findings on all grounds taken by the petitioner in the memo of the appeal.
Issues: Non-speaking order by the Appellate Authority, jurisdiction of the respondents under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Authority's non-speaking order was not considered proper in the eyes of the law, and the court directed the Appellate Authority to hear the parties and return findings on all grounds taken by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority for further proceedings.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Heard.
2. While going through the order made by the Appellate Authority dated 4.4.2015, Annexure PO, in appeal No. 124 of 2014, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Appellate Authority has not passed a speaking and well reasoned order. Virtually, the Appellant Authority has passed a non-speaking order, is not an order in the eyes of law.
3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents, without jurisdiction, have pressed into service Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. We have gone through the appeal. The petitioner has taken all grounds in the memo of appeal.
5. In the given circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and without discussing the facts and merits of the case, we deem it proper to set aside the order made by the appellate Authority. Ordered accordingly.
6. The Appellate Authority is directed to hear the parties and return the findings on all grounds taken by the petitioner in the memo of the appeal. Parties are also at liberty to take additional grounds available to them, as per the law applicable, before the Appellate Authority.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount before the Appellate Authority and 20% before this Court, shall remain deposited till the Appellate Authority decides the appeal on merits.
8. Parties are directed to cause appearance before the Appellate Authority on 3rd October, 2016. The appellate Authority to decide the appeal within two months w.e.f. 3rd October, 2016.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith pending applications, if any.
