1 2025:HHC:14371 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 224 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.05.2025 M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog …Petitioner Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manik Sethi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. N. K. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “i. A direction be issued under the Supervisory jurisdiction, to allow the present petition of the petitioner by directing the respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the application (filing no. 285/2025) dated 02.05.2025 filed by the petitioner and the Complaint with petition No. 129/2024, both titled as ‘M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog vs. HPSEBL’ on the next scheduled date of assembling of the respondent No. 2. ii. In the interregnum, to balance the equities, a direction may be passed to the respondent Board to not insist upon the payment of the amount as is due in terms of 2 2025:HHC:14371 Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-4 in the payment of Electricity.” 2. A perusal of the order sheets annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5 (collectively) goes to indicate that the matter has been unnecessarily adjourned by the Commission. However, taking into consideration the fact that the case is now fixed for 06.06.2025 for compliance of the order, therefore, I direct that in case the HPSEBL i.e. respondent No. 1 herein does not comply with the orders, as required, then the respondent No. 2 shall proceed to initiate action against the HPSEBL i.e. respondent No. 1 under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003. If once such notice is issued, then necessary proceedings in accordance with law shall be concluded within two months from the issuance of notice. 3. Till such decision, respondent No. 1 shall not insist upon the petitioner for payment of the bills to the extent of the amount claimed by the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by the Ombudsman. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 16.05.2025(sanjeev)