M/s Happy Stone Crusher v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. On his instruction, Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, has also put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. Quash and set aside the impugned provisional recovery notice dated 28.04.2025 Annexure P-1 issued by the respondents. 2. Direct the Respondents to conduct any inspection regarding tampering allegations strictly in compliance 2 the presence of representative ensuring with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Supply Code, 2009, and only Petitioner or his opportunity for representation. 3. Restrain the Respondents from recovering the alleged amount of Rs.5,04,557/- by adjusting or including it in the Petitioner’s future bills.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 28.04.2025, Annexure P-1 and has submitted that the directions that have been issued vide impugned notice are per se bad as the same are in fragrant violation of the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). He submitted that in terms of the statutory provisions of Section 126 of the Act, firstly the Assessing Officer has to pass a Provisional Assessment Order, copy whereof has to be provided to the concerned entity calling upon the entity to submit its response thereto and thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned, the Final Assessment Order can be passed. He submitted that this statutory scheme has not been followed in the course of the passing of the impugned order.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the respondents do no admit to the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, in the backdrop of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 3 petitioner, appropriate order be passed but the interest of the respondent-Board be also protected.