JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed assailing award dated 15.09.1994, Annexure P-2, passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, as well as order dated 27.10.1997, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No.2 under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short “the Act of 1910”).

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.4 was running a steel rolling mill in Mandi Gobindgarh and was driving electricity from account bearing No.LP-61081, which was inspected by a Mobile Meter Testing Squad on 17.11.1986. She submits that a report, Annexure P-1, was prepared on the same day and the meter was found to be running slow. Counsel points out that the electricity meter was replaced and defective meter was tested in the laboratory. She submits that after over-hauling the account of respondent No.4, a demand notice was served, which was challenged by filing a civil suit. Counsel states that the matter was referred to the Chief ElectricalInspector under Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 and vide impugned award dated 15.09.1994, Annexure P-2, Chief Electrical Inspector held that the demand could not have been raised. Counsel states that an appeal was filed under Section 36(2) of the Act of 1910, which has been rejected vide impugned order, Annexure P-3, by Appellate Authority-respondent No.2 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Counsel asserts that the impugned award, Annexure P-2, was dispatched to the petitioner vide communication dated 23.01.1995, which was received on 01.02.1995. After processing it, an appeal was filed on 09.05.1995 and later an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was separately moved. She asserts that as the delay is of a few days, it deserves to be condoned and the mater be decided on merits.

3. Writ petition has been contested by respondent No.4. Counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that the Appellate Authority has not been vested with power to condone the delay. It is his submission that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition assailing the appellate order, Annexure P-3, which has been dismissed and a fresh writ petition on the same cause is not maintainable.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions, besides examining the documents placed on the record.

5. Undisputedly, petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No.6587-1998 titled as P.S.E.B. vs. Radha Steel Rolling Mills and another, wherein it had laid challenged to impugned appellate order dated 27.10.1997, Annexure P-2. After considering the submissions made, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 27.10.1997. The operative part of the order isreproduced hereunder:-

“A bare reading of the above extracted observations shows that in Mukri Gopalan's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the District Judge under section 18 of the relevant Statute and not a case like the present one in which the appropriate government acts an an appellate authority under the 1910 Act and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, on the basis of the judgment in Mukri Gopalana case (supra) it cannot be held that while exercising power under section 36(2) of the 1910 Act read with Rule 6 of the 1956 Rules, the appellate authority acts as a Court for the purpose of section 5 of the 1963 Act.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to challenge the impugned order by filing an independent writ petition.”

6. It is, therefore, evident from the above that impugned appellate order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. The award passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector has merged with the appellate order, although, permission was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. Once the award has merged with the appellate order, which has been upheld by