2025:HHC:28389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 13410 of 2025 Decided on : 21.08.2025 M/s Happy Stone Crusher. …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 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meenakshi Katoch, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ 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-11 issued by the Respondents. 2. Direct the Respondents to conduct any inspection regarding tampering allegations strictly in compliance 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28389 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. 3. Restrain the Respondents from recovering the alleged amount of Rs. 8,86,967/- by adjusting or including it in the Petitioner's future bills.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has a statutory remedy in terms of Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, however, it has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that the impugned order on the face of it, is perverse, as the contentions raised by the petitioner are not reflected at all in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act to substantiate his contention. 3. This Court is of the considered view that on this count the statutory remedy provided in the Act, cannot be circumvented. The pleas raised by learned Senior Counsel before this Court can be good reasons for the Appellate Authority to intervene, however, said pleas do not confer any 3 2025:HHC:28389 right upon the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioner that the contentions raised before this Court are of such a nature that the Appellate Authority is precluded from considering them in the course of exercising the appellate power. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable, on account of a statutory remedy being available to the petitioner, which has not been exhausted by it, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy, as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 21, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)