Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Raj Industries - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board And Others - Respondents
CWP No.2902 of 2018
Decided On :18-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Decisions in review proceedings cannot be taken in absence of parties without evidence of notice and non-appearance despite intimation - Liberty to decide against applicant after hearing applicant alone, but not in total absence. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged demand raised for contract demand on account of infrastructure development charges. Complaint before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum partly allowed. Representation before Ombudsman resulted in directions to provide break-up of expenditure. Review petition dismissed without hearing parties, with insertions in earlier order holding liability to pay charges.
Findings of Court:
Review order dated 08.08.2018 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Ombudsman to decide review afresh after hearing both parties.
Issues: Whether Ombudsman could dismiss review petition and insert findings in prior order without affording hearing to parties; validity of review proceedings conducted in absence of both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: Regulation 37(8) mandates opportunity of hearing before review; non-compliance vitiates order. Insertions for inadvertent omissions require hearing parties, not permissible unilaterally in absence. Result : Petition allowed; review order quashed and remanded.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meenakshi Katoch, Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges idc demands and ombudsman orders. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions on absence of hearing opportunity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. reg. 37(8) mandates hearing before review. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. no order alterations without party hearings. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. quash review; remand for fresh hearing. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a). A writ in the nature of certiorari be passed quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Khalini; demand notice dated 03.03.2017 issued by the Additional Superintending Engineer (Annexure P-6) and demand notice dated 31.03.2018, respondents/HPSEB Limited. (Annexure P-12) issued by the respondents/HPSEB Limited.
b) A writ in the nature of certiorari be passed quashing and setting aside the orders dated 8.3.2018 (Annexure P- 3) passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of HPSEBL.
c). To Allow the complaint filed by the petitioner firm before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of HPSEBL at Kasumpti Shimla Kasumpti as well as representation/review petition filed before the Ld. Electricity Ombudsman Khalini, Shimla.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that feeling aggrieved by a demand raised by the respondent-Board, amounting to Rs.34,50,000/- for 1200 KVA contract demand, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, i.e. Complaint No.1432/2/17/025. This complaint was partly allowed by the Forum in terms of order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-3). Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Form, the petitioner filed a Representation under Regulations 16 to 18 of the HPERC Consumers Grievances Redressal (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation before the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman, vide order dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P- 1), The Ombudsman disposed of the representation of the petitioner by returning the following findings:-
“In view of the above facts, contentions of the parties and examining the documents like replies/rejoinders and arguments, it comes out that appellant has represented against the CGRF order dated 08.03.2018 passed in complaint No.1432/2/17/25. In pursuance to the CGRF above order the respondent Board (Sr. Executive Engineer) issued a revised notice on account of IDC. However, respondent Board did not furnish the complete break-up of expenditure occurred for creation of Infrastructure for giving power to appellant. The Respondent Board is directed to render the applicant/complainant the complete break-up of expenditure on account of IDC amount and the methodology to arrive at a figure of 2875/KVA alongwith any additional information required by the complainant within a month and overhaul the account of complainant accordingly as per mechanism final order issued by HPERO for suo moto case no.25 of 2016 on dated 05-10- 2016 and further endorsed by Chief Engineer commercial HPSEBL order No. HPSEBL/CE(Comm.)/APTEL/VOL- 1/2016-10021-10135 dated 1-11-2016. The appellant/complaint is also directed to take up the matter with the Respondent Board to have complete records of expenditure occurred and IDC by respondent for creation of Infrastructure.”
3. Still not being satisfied with the said findings returned by the Ombudsman, the petitioner preferred a Review petition in terms of Regulation 37(8). The Review filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Ombudsman on 08.08.2018, vide Annexure P-2, by passing the following order:-
“ORDER
Reader to Registrar
(08.08.2018)
Taking the to consideration the application filed by the applicant i.e. M/s Raj Industries, Village Belideyore, Baddi Road, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan (H.P.) through its authorised representative Sh. Rakesh Barisal & Rahul Mahajan, Advotates Versus HPSEB Ltd. and others on 08.08.2018 in context of the order dated 25.06.2018
