Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs M/S Transcon Hi-Tech Equipments Pvt. ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
M/s Transcon Hi-Tech Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited CWP No. 13331 of 2024 21.11.2024 Present Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, `Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3/State. CWP No. 13331 of 2024 & CMP No. 21889 of 2024 Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocates and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, waive notice on behalf of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 respectively. They pray for and are granted two weeks' time to file reply.
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate representing the petitioner is that without there being any revision/ amendment, if any, in the tariff order issued by the competent authority i.e. HPERC, respondent-electricity Board could not have disallowed the additional subsidy given to the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons pursuant to policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Perusal of documents adduced on record reveals that HPERC, being competent authority though had passed order, thereby prescribing rate of tariff to be imposed upon the industries of various categories and such order was to remain in force for a particular period. No doubt, order, thereby prescribing tariff for a relevant period, could be amended/revised by the Commission, but by following due procedure of law as prescribed under various provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
In the instant case, perusal of communication dated 20.9.2024 (Annexure P-8), issued under the signature of Secretary, HPERC, to the Managing Director, HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4, suggests that Commission while taking note of the communication dated 18.9.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, thereby expressing intention of the State of Himachal Pradesh to revise the tariff sent communication dated 20.9.2024 to the HPSEBL to take necessary action in the matter but HPSEBL straight away without getting the tariff order issued by the Commission for relevant period, modified/revised issued electricity bill thereby disallowing the subsidy granted in favour of the petitioner by Government of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to policy decision. Though impugned action of respondent- board in as much as issuing electricity bill thereby disallowing the additional subsidy granted to the petitioner shall be decided in the totality of pleadings as well as material adduced on record by the parties to the lis but having taken note of the fact that prior to issuance of impugned electricity bill, tariff was not revised by the competent authority i.e. HPERC, prayer made by the petitioner for interim relief, deserves to be allowed. Consequently, in the interim, it is ordered that during pendency of the petition, though respondent electricity Board may issue bill to the petitioner qua its having used electricity, but without deducting additional subsidy already allowed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
List alongwith CWP No.12178 of 2024.
CMP No. 21890 of 2024 Disposed of with a direction to the applicant(s) to file typed/English translations of the documents in issue within four weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 21, 2024 (vikrant)