JUDGMENT This is a wholly misconceived petition. Apparently faced with a dilemma (seemingly of its own creation) about the non maintainability of their so called Appeal filed before the Secretary (power) in the purported exercise of his so called appellate power, and faced with an avoidable situation where perhaps all other efficacious remedies had been eluding them, the petitioners have chosen this uncharacteristic course to approach this court by invoking this courts jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by speciously alleging that the proceedings so far taken before various for a have been without jurisdiction. This, inspite of the clear and unambiguous position that all along the petitioners themselves have been privy to all these proceedings and various orders passed by these various far a from time to time. 2. The first and the foremost in the chain of events is the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib, on 12.6.1997, which reads thus: 3. "At this stage conciliation has been effected between the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has agreed to send the dispute to Arbitrator as prayed for by the defendants. His statement has been recorded to this effect. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Arbitrator for disposal in accordance with law. Till the settlement of arbitration, the interim order granted in the suit shall stand intact. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator i.e. the Chief Electrical Inspector at Shimla on 26.7.1997. Copy of this order be sent to the Arbitrator. File be consigned to R.R." 4. As will be evidently clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid order passed in a pending suit between the parties, the order passed upon an explicit agreement of the parties and with their consent, the matter was referred for conciliation and arbitration of Chief Electrical Inspector at Shimla. Necessarily this could not be construed as an arbitration ordered under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the parties also did not construe it as such because the order dated 12.6.1997 (supra) did not indicate so. Thus, at best, this order could be construed as an arbitration either under common law or under the statutory provision contained in the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, at best, this order could be construed as an arbitration either under common law or under the statutory provision contained in the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. Actually it, in law, could not be considered as an arbitration under Section 26(6) (supra) because of the restrictive operation of Section 26(6). In any case the petitioners herein were parties to the aforesaid agreement and it was with their consent that the aforesaid order was passed. When the matter went to the chief Electrical Inspector, the petitioners without any demur participated in the arbitration proceedings and took a chance. When the award went against them, rather than availing of the remedies permissible under law, against that award, they filed a so called appeal before the Secretary (power). When respondent No.1 objected to the jurisdiction of the aforesaid so called Appellate Authority and rightly and justifiably so, he perhaps and apparently without any application of mind summarily dismissed the objection of respondent No.1 by holding that he had the jurisdiction in the matter as an Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal against the award passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector. He relied upon section 24(2) of the India Electricity Act, 1910. for ready reference Section 24(2) reads thus: "Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision: (provided that the prohibition contained in this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the (Electrical Inspector) of the amount of the licensees charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensees further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request)". 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that this provision has nothing to do whatsoever with any appeal by anyone or before anyone. 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that this provision has nothing to do whatsoever with any appeal by anyone or before anyone. This provision does not relate to any appeal as such and yet apparently without any thought and without any application of mind the so called Appellate Authority dismissed the objection of respondent No.1 about his lack of jurisdiction and assumed to himself a jurisdiction which in law did not vest in him. Even though the Appellate Authority absolutely, wrongly and incorrectly assumed himself to be the Appellate Authority, the basic fault lies with the petitioner about their having chosen that wrong Forum and that wrong remedy. 6. To over up their lapses, they have once again chosen a wholly untenable course of action by approaching this Court. We repeatedly asked Mr. Mittal as to what relief could be given by us to his clients in this petition, but to be fair to him, he was at a loss to explain to us, being faced with the predicament that apparently he was involved in. 7. For their own acts of omission and commission if the petitioners have landed themselves in a legal tangle they have to blame themselves for this. 8. The petition is (dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.