2025:HHC:22745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11306 of 2025 Decided on: 15.07.2025 Orissa Metaliks Private Limited … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Viplav Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s Shivam Shukla and Anirudh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent- No.2-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Ms. Sugandh Verma, learned counsel and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively and Ms. Sunita Sharma, on instructions, also appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned demand notice dated 30.06.2025 and the subsequent coercive letter dated 08.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1; (b) Direct Respondent No. 1 to act strictly in accordance with the HPERC (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2005, including furnishing of detailed calculations, adjustment of existing deposit, issuance of statutory notice, and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22745 allowing payment in quarterly installments; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction restraining Respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive steps including disconnection of electricity supply to the Petitioner without following due process of law; (d) Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent- Board has referred to Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted that as a Fora stands constituted under these particular provisions of the Electricity Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of the fact that coercive action has been taken by the respondents against the petitioner without adhering to the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has come to the Court. 5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that there is an alternative Dispute Redressal Fora exists and as the said statutory remedy has not been exhausted by the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the connection of the petitioner be restored forthwith and the same shall not be disconnected as upto 31.07.2025, to enable the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Statutory Fora. However, in case the petitioner does not approaches the appropriate Fora by 31.07.2025, then the protection granted to the petitioner shall cease to exist and shall 3 2025:HHC:22745 come to an end and further, if the petitioner does approaches the statutory Fora on or before 31.07.2025, then the protection granted to the petitioner to continue till appropriate orders are passed on the application that may be filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merits of the case are concerned and indulgence shown to the petitioner should not be construed as this Court has made any positive observation as far as the contentions of the petitioner are concerned. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15, 2025 (Rishi)