Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v. Vardhman Ispat Udyog & Anr.

The petitioners have challenged Annexure P-10, which is an order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman, dated 03.06.2023, in terms whereof, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was disposed of in the following terms:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “J-Order:

1. The orders passed on 29/03/2023 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Kasumpti in Complaint No. 3325/2/22/16-3325/1/23/11, dated 03/03/2023 hereby quashed and set aside.

2. The Respondents are directed to overhaul the account of the Complainant after correcting his tariff applicable for 132 KV sub-category instead of HT-2 sub-category under Large Industrial Power Supply (LIPS) Category.

3. LVSS shall be applicable as per Tariff provisions since he is being supplied electricity at 33 kV instead of 132 kV entitlement.

4. The Respondents are further directed to refund the excess amount charge, if any, on account of wrong application of tariff within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this order but not later than 03/07/2023. In case of delay beyond 30 days, the interest 15% shall be applicable in line with Clause 5.7.3 of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009.

5. The Respondents are further directed to report Compliance of above directions within a period of 30 days of issuance of the orders or but not later than 03/07/2023 positively failing which the matter shall be reported to the Hon'ble Commission for violations of the directions under Regulation 37 (6) of 3 Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 for appropriate action by the Commission under the provisions of the Act.

6. The Complaint filed by M/S Vardhman Ispat Udyog, Village Bathri, Tehsil Haroli, Near Tahliwala, District Una, HP-174301 is hereby disposed off.

7. No cost to litigation.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and further on the ground that the filing of the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the order was passed by the Ombudsman on 03.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition before the Ombudsman itself on

03.07.2023, seeking review of the said order. On 27.07.2023, notices were issued by the Ombudsman on the said review petition and an interim order was passed. Respondent No. 1 challenged the issuance of notice and passing of order by the Ombudsman by way of CMPMO No. 449 of 2023 before this Court. In terms of order dated

27.03.2024 passed by this Court (Annexure P-12), the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was allowed by the Court and the grant of interim by the 4 Ombudsman in the review petition was held to be bad by this Court by quashing the said order. This was followed by passing of Annexure P-13, dated 02.04.2024, by the Ombudsman, in terms whereof the review petition was dismissed. Despite the dismissal of the review petition by the Ombudsman on 02.04.2024, the order passed by the Ombudsman was not implemented by the petitioners. In these circumstances, respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on 03.10.2024. This was evident from the documents appended with the application filed by the respondents, i.e. CMP No. 12652 of 2025, seeking permission to place on record certain documents, which was allowed by this Court on 04.06.2025. In the proceedings, which were initiated under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, five adjournments were taken by the present petitioners for compliance of the order/filing of the reply but nothing was done. In these circumstances, as no order was being passed by Ombudsman on the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, respondent No. 1 preferred CMPMO No. 154 of 2025 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court vide Annexure A-4 appended with the miscellaneous application, i.e. order dated 11.04.2025 passed in CMPMO No. 154 of 2025, titled as M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog vs. HPSEBL and another, in the following terms:- 5 “Notice. Mr. Dhananjay Sharma and Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocates, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. A perusal of the order sheet that has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P2 would go to show that respondent No.2 is unnecessarily adjourning the matter.

3. However, taking into consideration the fact that the case is now fixed for 25.04.2025, I deem it appropriate to direct the Ombudsman to decide the case finally on the said date. Ordered accordingly. Till such decision, respondents shall not insist upon the petitioner for the payment of the bill to the extent of amount claimed by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Ombudsman.

4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.”

4. Thereafter, the Ombudsman passed an order in the application filed under Section 142 of the Act. This was followed by the petitioners preferring CWP No. 6621 of 2025, before this Court on 22.04.2025, which was withdrawn on 22.04.2025 on technical grounds with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause. Thereafter the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that this unexplained delay of almost two years in filing this petition is not 6 satisfactorily explained in the writ petition and therefore, as the filing of this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the same be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as the petitioners were initially pursuing the remedy of review, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not vigilant of their rights. He submitted that as there is no undue delay in filing of this petition, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of respondent No. 1 to state that this petition is hit by delay and laches.

7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is grossly hit by delay and laches and filing thereof is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

8. It is evident from the judgment that was passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 449 of 2023, M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog vs. HPSEB and another (Annexure P-12) that filing of the review before the Ombudsman at the first instance, was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court returned the findings that the grounds urged in the review petition were those which could have been taken in the appeal. These 7 findings returned by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench have attained finality.

9. Be that as it may, even the review that was filed by the Board was ultimately dismissed by the Ombudsman in terms of order Annexure P-13, dated 02.04.2024.

10. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that too in the month of October, 2024. Between April 2024 and October, 2024, nothing was done by the petitioners-Board to assail the earlier order passed by the Ombudsman on 03.06.2023. After the application was filed by respondent No. 1under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, time was taken by the Board to file reply/file compliance and this also continued till ultimately this Court had to intervene in another CMPMO filed by the respondent, i.e. CMPMO No. 154 of 2025, which was decided on 11.04.2024. It was only thereafter that the petitioners approached this Court way of CWP No. 6621 of 2025 on 22.04.2025, which was allowed to be withdrawn on technical grounds. The delay in assailing order dated 03.06.2023 has therefore not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners herein up to the filing of the earlier writ petition.

11. It has to be appreciated that the Board is not like any other ordinary litigant. It has a team of legal advisors to assist it. 8 Yet, the writ petition was filed belatedly and apparently to undo the orders which were passed by the Ombudsman as well as by this Court, which already stand referred hereinabove. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, as this Court concurs with the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the petition is hit by delays and laches, which has not been satisfactorily explained and further as the filing of the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the same is dismissed on said count. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 15, 2025 (narender) (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge