Judgment 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. 3. 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 petitioner firm was also directed to deposit half of the amount in question. 3. 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). 4. 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 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. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 factual position has been admitted, however, it has been asserted that as a matter of procedure, the examination of the meter in ME Lab is carried out regarding genuineness of seals or tampering of the meter glass etc. only, if the same is not technically feasible to check the meter at site. If the accuracy of the meter is not tested at the site, the same is sent to ME Lab for examination with regard to the accuracy in addition to the checking of the genuineness of the ME seals. It has further been asserted that in the present case flying squad had given a categorical finding about slow running of the meter at site through the ERS meter. The ME Lab did not report for overall examination as the overall examination of the meter can be done only at the site. It has further been asserted that after installation of the new meter the consumption of electricity had increased. In this regard details of units consumed before change of meter i.e. from 10/95 to 12/96 and after change of meter on 1.1.1997 i.e. from 1/97 to 4/97 has been given. 6. It has further been asserted that after installation of the new meter the consumption of electricity had increased. In this regard details of units consumed before change of meter i.e. from 10/95 to 12/96 and after change of meter on 1.1.1997 i.e. from 1/97 to 4/97 has been given. 6. Controverting the averments made in the written statement a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner wherein the stand taken is that in the ME Lab examination is being done with regard to the accuracy of the meter as well as checking of the genuineness of ME seals. It has further been submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have deliberately given incomplete information regarding consumption data of only four months after change of the meter, whereas subsequent consumption of units shows that there is variance in consumption of electricity. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record we find that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 after going through the record has came to the conclusion that detailed reasons should have been given by the Chief Electrical Inspector in support of his conclusion that the meter was not running slow. Respondent No. 1 has also observed that consumption has increased. It seems that in order to remove doubts, respondent No. 1 thought it fit to remand the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector for fresh adjudication. No adverse order has been passed against the petitioner firm and the petitioner cannot be considered as aggrieved by the impugned order. The parties have been directed to appear before the Chief Electrical Inspector to put forth their respective stand. We do not see any ambiguity to interfere with the order dated 15.9.2006, passed by respondent No. 1 because no right of the petitioner firm has been infringed. 8. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Chief Electrical Inspector, PSEB, Patiala, on 11.2.2008. It is, however, made clear that any observation made by us shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy by the Chief Electrical Inspector or any other authority.