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
Kundlas Loh Udyog – Appellant
Versus
HPSEBL – Respondent


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

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 Fina

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top