SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
 
M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog - Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL and others - Respondents
CWP No. 12178 of 2024 with CWP Nos. 12180, 12273-12275, 12292, 12293, 12365-12372, 12397- 12403, 12407, 12413, 12414, 12486, 12494, 12497, 12500, 12503, 12545, 12547, 12549, 12557, 12560, 12565, 12624, 12631-12632, 12663, 12665-12669, 12671, 12675, 12678, 12683, 12690, 12692,12695, 12772, 12774-12777, 12781, 12786-12789, 12803- 12809, 12812-12814, 12833, 12835, 12836, 12838, 12841, 12877, 12880, 12893, 12894, 12895, 12898, 12899, 12902, 12903, 12911,
12913, 12988, 12992, 13004, 13112, 13114, 13115, 13126, 13128, 13129, 13139, 13143, 13145, 13148, 13203-13205, 13208, 13213, 13216-13219, 13249, 13254, 13263, 13268, 13269-13271, 13273- 13277, 13297, 13299-13304, 13306-13309, 13329, 13333, 13336, 13341, 13367, 13371, 13380, 13381, 13385, 13387, 13389, 13405, 13415, 13421, 13423, 13428, 13430, 13432, 13434, 13436, 13439, 13441, 13469, 13471, 13472, 13473, 13475, 13486-13488, 13516, 13518, 13521, 13522, 13529, 13531, 13538, 13659, 13673, 13674, 13675, 13679, 13680, 13682, 13688, 13689, 13693, 13695, 1379, 13791, 13802, 13808, 13810, 13812, 13813, 13814, 13815, 13816, 13941 of 2024
Decided on : 03-12-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Sethi & Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocates  Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Sethi, Advocate in Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan,
Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate in Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate in Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Mr. Abhishek Sethi and Ms. Richa Sethi and Mr. Pawan K. Sharma,  Mr. Ajay Vaidya and Ms. Narvada,  Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate in Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate in Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate in  Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate in Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate Mr. Manik Sethi, Advocate in CWP Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate in CWP Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Mr. Manvender Singh, Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates in Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate  Mr. Vishal Sharma and Mr. Daleep Chand, Advocates  Mr.Vikas Rathore, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, for the respondent-HPSEBL, in all the petitions. Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate

The Electricity Board's action to issue energy bills without subsidy was lawful under the Electricity Act after the State Government's withdrawal of additional subsidy, as the Tariff Order provided for both subsidized and unsubsidized rates.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 62(6), 64(6), 86(1)(a), 65 - Tariff Order for Financial Year 2024-25 - Petitioners contended that Board could not withdraw additional subsidy without an amendment to the Tariff Order. Court found no illegality in Board issuing bills without the subsidy after government decision not to provide it, as Tariff Order explicitly stated provisions for both subsidized and non-subsidized rates. (Paras 3, 10-12, 31, 46-49)

(B) Principles of Tariff Modification - The Commission is empowered to determine tariffs and can provide two sets of rates; one with subsidy and one without. Once the government communicated the decision to withdraw subsidy, the Board acted within its rights by raising bills on the basis of rates without subsidy per Commission's directive. (Paras 46-50)

(C) Appeal to appropriate authority - Petitioners' grievances must be addressed through appropriate administrative channels or appellate forums rather than a writ petition. (Paras 63-66)

Findings of Court:
The Board rightfully issued energy bills reflecting the unsubsidized tariff after the state decided to stop providing the subsidy. There was no requirement for a new Tariff Order as prior provisions encompassed such situations. (Paras 51-72)

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common questions of facts and law addressed. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' grievances about tariff changes. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. interim directions regarding energy bills. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
4. arguments on the amendment of tariff orders. (Para 7 , 10 , 11)
5. discussion on the consumer's rights and subsidy. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
6. legal framework defining tariff regulations. (Para 16 , 18 , 19)
7. regulatory provisions and subsidy implementations. (Para 22 , 24 , 30)
8. clarifications on the subsidy and tariff approvals. (Para 36 , 39 , 40)
9. determining tariff without subsidies due to governmental actions. (Para 42 , 50 , 52)
10. final ruling on the validity of the energy bills. (Para 60 , 71 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above captioned cases and petitioners therein are aggrieved by energy bill issued by respondent No.2 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter, ‘Board’) for the month of October, 2024, without extending benefit of additional subsidy otherwise provided by respondent No.3 Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter, ‘Commission’) in Tariff Order for Financial Year 2024-25, this court with the consent of parties, clubbed all the cases and now same are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. Though, facts in all the petitions are common, as such, same are not required to be specifically referred from one particular petition, but since, certain documents, pursuant to which change in Tariff Order came to be effected, are required to be taken note, this court for the sake of clarity, shall take note of pleadings as well as documents, adduced on record in the lead case i.e. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others (CWP No. 12178 of 2024).

3. Primarily, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions at hand and further canvassed by the respective learned senior counsel and learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is that the Board could not have withdrawn the benefit of additional subsidy of its own, while issuing energy bills for the month of October, 2024, especially when such benefit stood granted to them by the Commission, while approving Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2024-25 effective from 1.4.2024 till 31.3.2025. Though, the petitioners herein do not deny power of the Commission to amend/modify the Tariff Order, approved by it for a particular Financial Year, but their grouse is that the Tariff Order, once approved, cannot be changed/altered without there being amendment in the Tariff Order, which can only be passed by the Commission, while exercising power under S.62(6) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter, ‘Act’).

4. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, facts, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the controversy at hand are that vide order dated 15.3.2024 (Annexure P-6), Commission passed Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2024-25, wherein afore authority while retaining tariff structure of 4th APR (Annual Performance Review) order approved tariff for Financial Year 2024-25,, with and without subsidy. It is not in dispute, rather stands admitted that, after passing of the afore Tariff Order, petitioners herein, which fall under the category of large scale industry, kept on receiving energy bill, as per Tariff Order dated 15.3.2024, approved by the Commission with subsidy.

5. Vide communication dated 18.9.2024, (Annexure P-7), Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh apprised the Commission that impact of increase in tariff will not be neutralized through additional subsidy as per letter dated 13.3.2024 in respect of large scale power supply with effect from 1.10.2024. While conveying aforesaid decision, Government also requested Commission to get order dated 15.3.2024 amended suitably at the earliest. After receipt of aforesaid communication, Secretary of the Commission vide commu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top