2025:HHC:27285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13004 of 2025 Decided on: 12.08.2025 M/s Kunal Stone Cruhser … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shriyekk Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s Dhananjay Sharma and Surender Kumar, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. Quash and set aside the impugned provisional recovery notice dated 28.07.2025 Annexure P-6 issued by the Respondents. AND 2. Direct the Respondents to conduct any inspection regarding tampering allegations strictly in compliance with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Supply Code, 2009, and only in the presence of the Petitioner or his representative, ensuring fair opportunity for representation. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27285 AND 3. Restrain the Respondents from recovering the alleged amount of Rs. 11,99,629/- by adjusting or including it in the Petitioner's future bills.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), which is the final assessment made by the respondents under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition by submitting that as the impugned order is appealable under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the malafidies are writ large on the face of the impugned order and perusal thereof would demonstrate that the impugned order has been passed to harass the petitioner without providing him adequate opportunity as would be evident from the fact that despite 30 days requested by the petitioner to file response to the provisional notice dated 28.06.2025, the same were not granted and thereafter, vide communication dated 15.07.2025, he was just given a day’s time to file response thereto. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is bad and it calls for interference by this Court. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well 3 2025:HHC:27285 as learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order, this writ petition is not maintainable. The grounds that have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel to demonstrate that the impugned order is per se bad can always be agitated before the Appellate Authority. 5. It could not be demonstrated that the grounds which have been urged before this Court are such that the same can either not be raised before the Appellate Authority and if raised, cannot be decided by the said Authority, for lack of jurisdiction or otherwise. 6. Therefore, as this Court is of the considered view that there is no valid reason with the petitioner so as to evade the statutory remedy, this petition is dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Rishi)