IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.2880 of 2026 Decided on: 12.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

M/s Hargovind Plastics …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Ors.

.....Respondents ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mur. Skandh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Rana, Advocate vice Mr. Dhanjay Sharma, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge hNotice. Mr. Abhishek Rana, learned counsel, gaccepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

i Taking into consideration the grievance raised in this writ petition, nature of the order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.

2. An assessment order was issued on 13.07.2010 against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

respondent No.3. Petitioner availed statutory remedy against the said order by filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Dharamshala, District Kangra. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 07.07.2012, stayed the operation of the assessment order dated 14.05.2012. Whfile granting interim relief to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority observed in the order that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and that, in case the interim injunction was not granted, the petitioner would suffer loss.

The case record shows that the matter thereafter remained pending before the Appellate Authority. On 25.10.2024, petitioner’s appeal was dismissed in default. The copy of the order sheet of the day placed on record reflects that no appearance had been caused in the appeal Heither for the petitioner or for the respondent–State Electricity Board. On 18.12.2025, respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner for depositing an amount of ₹1,02,522/- along with interest of ₹9,29,122/-. The notice was issued factoring dismissal of petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Authority on 25.10.2024. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the amount within 15 days, failing which disconnection of its electricity was to follow.

On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner became aware of the dismissal of its appeal in default (as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner) and on 12.01.2026 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its restoration. Application was also movedf for condonation of delay in seeking restoration of appeal. While the application for restoration was pending, the respondents taking note of petitioner’s having not deposited the amount in question, ordered disconnection of its electricity. Application of petitioner was taken up by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala and following order was passed in the matter on

25.02.2026: -

“Case taken up for hearing Ld. Vice counsel i Pragati Kumari to Ld. Counsel Sh. Munish Sharma H alongwith Sh. Saksham Sangwan, present for the appellant.

Present appeal is not admitted as the appellate has not appended any evidentiary proof regarding deposition of half of the assessed amount with HPSEBL.”

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file.

4. The Appellate Authority refused to entertain petitioner’s application for restoration of the appeal on the ground that the appeal had not been admitted and that the petitioner