Failure to Afford Opportunity of Hearing in Review Proceedings Vitiates Ombudsman Order: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-11-18

Procedural Fairness Overlooked: High Court Slams Ombudsman for One-Sided Review Order

In a significant ruling for administrative law, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has set aside an order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, underscoring that statutory review powers cannot be exercised in a vacuum of procedural fairness. The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that the principles of natural justice—specifically audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)—are not optional, even in administrative review proceedings.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The litigation traces back to a billing dispute between Raj Industries and the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB). The petitioner challenged demand notices related to Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) totaling approximately Rs. 34.5 lakhs. Following an unsatisfactory outcome before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), the matter escalated to the Electricity Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman, while initially directing the Board to provide a detailed breakdown of the IDC expenditure, later dealt with a review petition filed by the petitioner. The review result, however, became the subject of this writ petition, as the Ombudsman dismissed the plea and simultaneously inserted "omitted portions" into the original order—all without notifying the petitioner or affording them an audience.

The Legal Battle: A Matter of Principles

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the review process was fundamentally flawed because the petitioner was never afforded a hearing. Furthermore, they contended that the Ombudsman acted beyond the scope of the review by injecting new text into the original order, effectively altering the judgment in absentia.

In its defense, the respondent-Board suggested that the petitioner had failed to appear at the hearing. However, the High Court rejected this, noting that the official records failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had been properly notified of the hearing date.

Judicial Analysis: The Mandatory Right to be Heard

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, presiding over the matter, emphasized that Regulation 37(8) of the HPERC Consumer Grievances Redressal Regulations mandates that an Ombudsman must provide an opportunity to be heard before reviewing an order.

The Court clarified that while the Ombudsman possesses the power to correct errors or review findings, such powers are constrained by basic legal norms. The Court noted, "The Court can give this much liberty to the Ombudsman that if it was not agreeing with the review petition, then it could have disposed of the review petition after hearing the applicant only, but by no stretch of imagination, the Ombudsman could have decided the review in the absence of the applicant."

Key Observations

The judgment offers several poignant reminders regarding the necessity of transparency in quasi-judicial functions:

• On the Principle of Audi Alteram Partem: "Regulation 37(8) provides that the Ombudsman at any time after affording an opportunity of being heard can review his orders either on his own motion or on an application of any of the party of the proceedings."
• On Transparency: "The Court is of the considered view that this also could not have been done by it in the absence of the parties."
• On Regulatory Compliance: "This is neither the letter nor the spirit of Regulation 37 (8). Therefore, on this count, the review order passed by the Authority is bad."

The Verdict: A Reset for Procedural Justice

The High Court’s final order is decisive: the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the review petition is quashed and set aside. The matter has been remanded back to the Ombudsman with specific instructions to conduct a fresh hearing.

This ruling reinforces that administrative authorities are bound by the same standards of fairness as formal courts. By forcing the Ombudsman to restart the review process with both parties present, the High Court has ensured that the petitioner’s grievances regarding the IDC billing will finally be heard on their merits, untainted by procedural irregularities. As legal professionals often stress, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done—a standard the HP High Court has firmly upheld here.