IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 193 of 2013 Decided on 11st August 2025 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others …Petitioners Versus M/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioner-Board has challenged order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, the complaint filed by the respondents herein was disposed of by the forum in the following terms:- 2 “The respondents could not provide the proof of service of notice of letter No.13689-71 dated 05.12.2006. Therefore, it is ordered that the account of the complainant be overhauled by recasting the bill for the consumption period 27.11.2006 to 27.12.2006 and 27.12.2006 to 01.02.2007 in the following manner:- Bill No. and date Billing Period PLE allowed Remarks Nil dt. 08.01.2007 22.11.2006 to 27.12.2006 4688 KVA For full cycle no restriction to be considered Nil dt. 12.02.2007 27.12.2006 to 15.01.2007 4688 KVA No restriction to be considered as the consumer came to know about restriction on 16.01.2007 only. Nil dt. 12.02.2007 16.01.2007 to 01.02.2007 30% of 4688 KVA i.e. 1406 KVA Restriction of 70% to be considered from 16.01.2007 to the date of lifting it. Peak load exemption charges are also to be levied as per the tariff applicable on the above basis of PLE allowed. Credit on account of over hauling of the account of the complaint (if any) be given within one month from today. These orders be implemented within one month from today. The compliance be reported to the Forum within 7 days of the implementation of order. A copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as well as their Ld. Counsels. Interim orders passed by the forum from time to time shall be vacated. With this the complaint stands disposed of. Order in favour of complainant.” 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the respondents. 4. First of all, it is relevant to mention that the impugned order was passed by the forum on 31.03.2011 and 3 the writ petition was filed assailing the same before this Court on 24.12.2012 i.e., after one year and nine months. 5. On a query put to the learned Senior Counsel as to how the Board justify the delay in filing the writ, no satisfactory answer was given. 6. Not only this, a perusal of the petition also demonstrates that there is no reason given therein as to why the order passed by the forum was assailed by the Board belatedly. Not only this, the Court also stands informed that the order has otherwise being complied with as is also evident from Annexure R-4 appended with the petition much before this writ petition was filed. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the forum dated 31.03.2011 was also complied with by the petitioners herein pursuant to Annexure R-4, order of the ombudsman dated 09.11.2011 and this writ petition was belatedly filed assailing the earlier order passed by the forum in the month of March, 2011 after one year and nine months, at this stage, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order which was passed 14 years ago. Further, otherwise also, during 4 the course of the hearing of the case, learned Senior Counsel could not point out the perversity in the order which is a reasoned and a speaking order and has been passed by the forum after taking into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and otherwise also being a forum comprising of experts, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise of its power of judicial review, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said order as no perversity on the face of it could be demonstrated by the petitioner. 8. 8. In the light of above observations, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (Vinod)