JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 29th July, 2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.1386 of 2002, titled H.P. State Electricity Board vs. M/s Arsh Casting Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., whereby the order, dated 11th June, 2002 (Annexure P-12 with the writ petition), made by the Secretary (MPP & Power), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, was quashed, with clarification that any observation made in the judgment would not haveany bearing on the merits of the civil suit, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant (respondent No.1 before the Writ Court), filed the instant appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it becomes emphatically clear that the learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order, dated 11th June, 2002, made by the Secretary (MPP & Power), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has virtually relegated the parties to the Civil Court, who has seized off the matter in a civil suit. 5. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the impugned judgment hereunder (page 26): “…………………..Issues No.6 and 7 reads as under: “6. Whether the defendant Company committed theft/pilferage of energy on 11.8.1995 and therefore, is liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,69,13,533/- determined by the Board Level Disputes Redressal Committee by its decision dated 12.3.1999? OPP 7. Whether the provisional as also the final assessment made by the Board Level Disputes Redressal Committee is illegal and void, as alleged? OPD.” On plain reading of the above-said two issues, the dispute whether the respondent-Company has committed theft/pilferage of energy on 11.8.1995 and also whether the respondent-Company is liable to pay the amount determined by B.L.D.S.C. by its decision dated 12.3.1999 is the subject matter of the said suit before this Court. Similarly, the provisional as well as the final assessment made by the Sub Divisional Officer and approved by the Superintending Engineer as well as the final order of B.L.D.S.C. are also the subject matter of the civil suit covered under issue No.7 above raised by the respondent-Company in the written statement. The parties have to lead their evidence in support of their claim and counter claim involved in the suit. The parties have to lead their evidence in support of their claim and counter claim involved in the suit. If the order of the appellant authority is allowed to sustain, the same shall have direct bearing on the suit pending in this Court filed by the petitioner- Board for the recovery of the amount determined by B.L.D.S.C. by its decision on 12.3.1999 which order has been set aside by the appellant authority. In these circumstances, it was desirable and appreciated in the interest of justice from the appellant authority to have stayed its hand from proceeding further in the appeal and could have waited for the final decision of the suit. Thus, the impugned order of the appellant authority is not sustainable and tenable and deserves to be set aside. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Company supporting and justifying the findings recorded and the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order cannot be accepted. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated June 11, 2002 Annexure P- 12 recorded by Secretary (MPP & Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the power of appellate authority is quashed and set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Order dated 4.3.2003 passed by this Court in CMP No.1991/2002 staying further proceeding in Civil Suit No.68 of 2000 pending in this Court stands vacated. I may clarify that any observation made in this order is meant for limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion in support of the correctness and validity of order dated 12.3.1999 (Annexure P-8) recorded by B.L.D.S.C. against the respondent-Company or on the merits of the Civil Suit pending in this Court which has to be decided in accordance with law when the contesting parties will lead their evidence on the issues settled in the Suit.” Emphasis Applied 6. The learned Single Judge has clearly directed that the observations made in the impugned judgment would not cause any prejudice to the parties and would not have any bearing on the merits of the civil suit. The learned Single Judge has clearly directed that the observations made in the impugned judgment would not cause any prejudice to the parties and would not have any bearing on the merits of the civil suit. It is also emphatically clear that the learned Single Judge has not returned any finding regarding the validity or otherwise of the order made by the Board Level Disputes Settlement Committee. A Civil Suit is pending between the parties, issues have been framed, parties have to lead evidence and the Civil Court has to determine all the issues. 7. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.