2025:HHC:25476-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5537 of 2022 Decided on: 31.07.2025 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others … Petitioners Versus M/S I D Sood Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shiv Darshan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order contained in Annexure P-14 i.e. order dated 15.03.2022 passed by Ld. Ombudsman may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently allowing the writ petition.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-14), passed by the Ombudsman, in terms whereof, the complaint filed by the respondents was allowed by the Ombudsman in the following terms:- “1. The orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum on 24/08/2021 In Complaint No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25476-DB 3234/2/21/01 dated 17/02/2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. 2. The demand notes/ Notices raised by the Respondents on Complainant towards IDC at different points of time are also quashed and set aside. 3. The Complainant is not liable to pay any IDC for his Connected Load of 2470.20 kW with 2520 KVA Contract Demand released on 26/05/2009 In view of clarifications provided by the Commission through order dated 31/10/2005 in clarificatory petition No. 315/05. 4. The Respondents are directed to refund the IDC amount collected from the Complainant (as Intimated vide Annexure-'F' In additional submissions dated 07/02/2022) amounting to Rs 29,74,324/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this order but not later than 16/04/2022. 5. The Respondents are further directed to report compliance to above directions within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of this order but not later than 29/04/2022 positively failing which the matter shall be reported to the Hon'ble Commission for violation of directions under Regulation 37 (6) of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 for appropriate action by the Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 6. The Complaint filed by M/S I.D.Sood ispats Ltd, Village & P.O. Kandrori, Tehsil Indora, Distt Kangra, HP-176402 is hereby disposed off. 7. No cost to litigation.” 3 2025:HHC:25476-DB 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondents/complainants (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) filed an application before the Ombudsman against order dated 24.08.2021, passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in complaint No.3234/2/21/01, dated 17.02.2021, filed under Regulation 28 (1) (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013. The prayer in the application filed before the Ombudsman was to the effect that the complainant was a consumer and was provided an electricity Connected Load of 2470.20 kW and 2520 kVA Contract Demand under Account No. LIPS-K-576 in its premises in District Kangra since 26.05.2009. The Connected Load at the time of filing of the case was 2970.20 kW and Contract Demand was 3000.00 kWA. As per the complainant, the Distribution licensee was illegally demanding alleged IDC charges to the tune of Rs.32,13,000/-. The Unit had deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.08.2005 as infrastructure development charges. In the bill issued for the month of August, 2014, the IDC charges were levied, which were illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Feeling aggrieved, the complaint approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Shimla, wherein the Unit was directed to deposit 1/3rd of the demand. The complainant deposited Rs.9,04,408/- on 05.11.2014. As the matter pertaining to IDC charges was pending 4 2025:HHC:25476-DB before the learned Appellate Tribunal, the learned Consumer Forum did not adjudicate the matter. In the interregnum, the Distribution Licensee again levied IDC charges to the tune of Rs.18,08,591/- in the energy bill issued to the Unit which was again assailed by the consumer by way of a complaint before the learned Consumer Forum. The complainant again deposited 1/3rd of the demand. Thereafter, the complaint was disposed of as learned Counsel for the Board stated that the Board had already issued directions not to issue the IDC charges till further orders. However, thereafter, again the Distribution Licensee levied IDC charges, which were again assailed by the complainant by way of complaint No.3234/3/19/041. In this also, 1/3rd of the demand was deposited, which was to the tune of Rs.3,93,200/-. This complaint was decided in favour of the complainant on 18.03.2020. After this order, the Distribution Licensee again demanded an amount of Rs.9,99,112/-. The complainant against approached the learned Consumer Forum and deposited 1/3rd of the demand. The grievance raised by the petitioners before the Ombudsman was that the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum vide order dated 24.08.2021, while setting aside the demand raised by the Distribution Licensee against the Distribution Licencor directed the petitioners to calculate the IDC charges on Rs.1,246.192 per kVa instead of Rs.1,275/- per kVA strictly in accordance with the Regulations and to recover the 5 2025:HHC:25476-DB deficit amount from the complainant. This order was assailed by the complainant before the Ombudsmen, inter alia, on the ground that the calculations per kVA caused by the Distribution Licensee against the complainant were whimsical and arbitrary. While calculating per kVA cost, alleged expenditure which was to be made the basis for calculating per kVA, was highly inflated one and in light of the fact that the connection was released in favour of the complainant as far back as 25.06.2009, the Unit was not liable to pay any alleged expenditure of alleged augmentation after release of connection to the Unit. It was further the case of the complainant that the calculation per kVA caused against the complainant Unit on the basis of alleged expenditure was not applicable in the case, which issue was completely ignored by the learned Consumer Forum. It was also the case of the complainant that Regulations 6 (2) of the Regulations 2005 were completely ignored by the Forum while passing the impugned order and therefore, the order was bad. 4. On the other hand, the the Board justified its act by stating that the amount that was worked out was based on the demand raised by the complainant and there was no infirmity in the demands raised by the Board, which were duly justified in light of the fact that the load that was being supplied to the complainant by the Board and further the order that was passed by the learned Consumer Forum in this regard called for no interference. 6 2025:HHC:25476-DB 5. The Ombudsman, on the basis of the contentions of the parties framed two Issues, i.e. “1. Issue No. 1: Whether the Complainant is liable to pay IDC for his electricity connection of 2470.20 kW of Connected Load and 2520 kVA of Contract Demand released on 26/05/2009? 2. Issue No. 2: Whether the orders passed by the Forum in Complaint No. 3234/2/21/01 dated 17/02/2021 passed on 24/08/2021 are in line with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005?” 6. In terms of the order passed by the Ombudsman, with regard to Issue No.1, it held that the complainant was not liable to pay any IDC charges under the provisions of the H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005, based on the clarifications provided by the Commission in Clarificatory Petition No.315/05, order which was passed on 31.10.2005. 7. With regard to Issue No.2, the Ombudsman held that the electricity connection to the Complainant was released on 26.05.2009 from the capacity already available at 132/33 kV 2x16 MVA sub-station created well before the commencement of the H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005. 7 2025:HHC:25476-DB 8. Feeling aggrieved, the Board preferred this petition. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Ombudsman is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the impugned order was not based on facts, but on conjunctures and surmises. She further submitted that the impugned order was per se bad on account of the fact that an amount of Rs.29,74,324/- was ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, which was never demanded by the consumer in the complaints. It was also contended on the part of the respondents that the impugned order was against the pleaded facts as well as Regulations governing the field. No other point was raised. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the Court to the pleadings including the complaint filed by the complainant and submitted that there was indeed a prayer for refund an amount of Rs.29,73,324/-, which was erroneously demanded by the Board and therefore, the contention on behalf of the Board that the Ombudsman erred in ordering the release of this amount without any prayer being made is not sustainable. 11. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the respondents and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other 8 2025:HHC:25476-DB documents on record. 12. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to make an observation at this stage that as this Court is exercising its power of Judicial Review against the order passed by the Ombudsman, therefore, obviously this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court. 13. Beside this, the Ombudsman is a body consisting of experts and therefore also, until and unless there is a glaring perversity pointed out in the order passed by such Authority, ordinarily this Court is not to substitute it's view for the view of the expert body. The scope of interference in exercise of its power of Judicial Review is primary restricted to whether due procedure was followed by the Authority while disposing of the matter and that settled principles of natural justice and appreciation of facts and evidence before were taken into consideration or not. 14. Now in this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the Ombudsman, perusal thereof demonstrates that a speaking and a reasoned order was passed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and thereafter, has assigned reasons for the conclusion arrived at by it. During the course of the arguments, it could not be demonstrated that the findings so returned by the Ombudsman were perverse or contrary to the record. Though, it was argued that the findings were returned on conjunctures or surmises, it could not be 9 2025:HHC:25476-DB substantiated as the order passed by the Ombudsman clearly demonstrated that the findings returned in the order were duly substantiated by the reasoning mentioned therein, which was based on the appreciation of the respective stand of the parties, which has been referred to in detail in the impugned order. 15. As observed hereinabove also, the main challenge to the order passed by the Ombudsman was on the ground that the Ombudsman erred in ordering refund of Rs.39,74,324/- with interest, ignoring the fact that there was no prayer made for the release of this amount in the complaint. 16. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that this is not the case. The complaint filed by the petitioners, which is on record as Annexure P-6, demonstrates that therein the following reliefs were prayed for by the petitioners:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this complaint may kindly be allowed and wrong, illegal, unjustified and arbitrary demand of Rs.9,99,112/- raised by Respondents pursuant to energy bill of March 2021, vide Notice No.DES/Notice 20-21-1619-21, may kindly be set aside and quashed. An amount of Rs.Nineteen Lakh Fifty Four thousand six hundred nine, illegally released from the Complainant by the Respondents may kindly be refunded to complainant or adjusted in future energy bill.” 17. This could not be disputed to be incorrect during the course of the arguments led by learned Senior Counsel for the 10 2025:HHC:25476-DB petitioners. In fact, the petitioners were swayed by the findings returned in the order passed by the learned Consumer Forum, dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-8), first para whereof read as under:- “The complainant is consumer of HPSEBL, having connected load 2470.201 KW and Contract Demand 2520 KVA. The Respondent Board served. notice to complainant company amounting to Rs. 9. 99,112/- only (Annexure C-5) of case file less deposited by the complainant which is disputed arrear resulted in hling this suit as per IDC charges fixed by the HPERC, the total amount duc against the complainant 32, 13,000/- but of which Rs. 24,26,609/-has already been deposited by the complainant (Annexure C-3) of Respondent reply. The complainant by its rejoinder dated 23.07.2021 stated that the demand is arbitrary and illegal as no procedure have been followed to determine the demand and prayed that the same may kindly be set aside & quashed. The Respondent Board in its reply refuted to the charges of the complainant and emphasised that the demand in question has been raised as per Regulation 419/2005 of HPERC and have been calculated Rs. 1275/- Per KVA amounting to Rs. 32,13,000/-only.” 18. It was on this basis that it was argued before the Court that the prayer was only for refund of Rs.9,99,112/-, however, as is evident from the contents of the complaint quoted by me hereinabove, this was not so and the complainant had prayed for refund of Rs.19,64,619/- also in addition to the amount of Rs.9,99,112/- and in this backdrop it cannot be said that the 11 2025:HHC:25476-DB Ombudsman erred in ordering the refund of the amount in favour of the respondents, in terms of the order. 19. In light of the fact that besides the points referred by me hereinabove, no other point was urged on behalf of the petitioners and as said contentions raised are without any merit, this petition is dismissed and order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-14), passed by the Ombudsman is upheld. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2025 (Rishi)