##PAGE1##

1

2026:HHC:4977 P

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMP(M) 81 of 2026 a/w

LPA No. 86 of 2026

Date of decisio n: 27.02.2026

________________________________________________________

H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & another

…..Appellants

Versus

M/s Atlas Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. & others

…Respondents

________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

________________________________________________________

For the Appellants: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sankhyan,

g Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

The present application has been filed for

condoning the delay of 559 days in filing the appeal

against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge

in CWP No. 1247 of 2022, titled as M/s Atlas Steel

Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh State

Electricity Board Limited and others, dated

10.05.2024.

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 23:29:56 :::CIS

2

2. The writ petition was disposed of in view ofP the

earlier judgment passed in CWP No. 2585 of 2024, titled

as M/s Pure & Cure Healthcare Private Limited

versus Himachal Pradesh State E lectricity Board

Limited, by the learned Single Judge.

3. It is a matter of record that LPA No. 560 of

2025, titled as HPSEB Ltd. Vs. M/s Pure & Cure

Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., challenging the aforesaid

judgment in CWoP No. 2585 of 2024 was decided on

27.11.2025, giving reasons in the said order, to uphold

the order.

4.h It is settled principle that the

applicants/appellants have to make out a case for

condoning the delay.

5. Unfortunately, there is not even a single

averment made in the application, which would go on to

show the reasons which had led to inordinate delay in

filing the appeal, which nowhere finds mention. The

merits of the case have also been incorporated in the

application. The only exceptional cause for delay in filing

the appeal, which is sought to be made out, reads as

under:-

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 23:29:56 :::CIS

3

“4. That immediately after pronouncement P

of the impugned judgment, certified copies

were obtained, and the matter was placed

before the Executive Director (Pers.) and Law

Cell of HPSEBL for scrutiny. Since HPSEBL is a

statutory public utility undertfaking, movement

of files involves multiple tioers of approval-field

division, Circle OfÏce, Chief Engineer

(Operations), and Board Head OfÏce-before

any decision to file an appeal is finalised.”

6. Perusal of the file would go on to show that

the certified copy of the judgment was applied after a

period of one year and five months, i.e. on 29.10.2025

and the OfÏce delivered the same on 18.11.2025 and

thereafter, the appeal was filed on 20.11.2025.

7. In the application, as noticed above, it has not

been mentioned that after the judgment was passed on

10.05.2024, when the matter was placed before the the

Executive Director (Personnel) and Law Cell of the Board

for scrutiny and mere plea has been taken that there has

been vast movements of files and the same involves

multiple tiers of approval.

8. If the Board as such is totally negligent in filing

appeals in as much as even for applying certified copies

of judgments one year and five months later and there is

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 23:29:56 :::CIS

4

no explanation worth accepting, then as to why the dPelay

should be condoned.

9. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in

the following judgments would come int o play.

10. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries

Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it has been held that in

absence of any plausuible and tangible explanation for long

delay, there waso no valid reason to condone the delay.

11. In Chief Postmaster General and others

versus Living Media India Limited and another,

(2012) 3 SCC 563, it has been held that liberal

concession may have to be