IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4368 of 2026 Decided on: 2nd April, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M/s Seagull Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior oAdvocate with Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate.

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

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

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

H 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.

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

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 APct) by 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 30.06.2012, stayed the operation of the assessment orders dated t13.07.2010 and 14.05.2012. While 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 either 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 Rs.14,24,409/- along with interest of Rs.12,82,855/-. The notice was issued factoring dismissal of petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Authority on 30.10.2024. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the amount within 15 days, failing which disconnection of its electricity was to follPow.

On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner became aware of the dismissal of its appeal in default (as contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner) and on 15.01.2026 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its restoration. Application was talso moved 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 Pragati Kumari to Ld. Counsel Sh. Munish Sharma alongwith Sh. Naresh Chouhan, present for appellant.

Present appeal is not admitted as appellant has not deposited half of the assessed amount with HPSEBL. No evidentiary proof regarding deposition is there with appeal.”

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