( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1722 of 2022 Reserved on : 16.07.2025 Decided on: July 30 , 2025 The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? . For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 1-Ambuja Cements Ltd. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent No. 1 – Company [M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. – I Unit (Suli)] (in short ACL-I Unit) was allowed to gradually reduce its contracted demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA, from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA, from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA and from 35000 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) KVA to 32000 KVA in different years. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (in short the ‘HPSEBL’) has come up in this petition against an order passed by respondent No. 2 – the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman (in short the ‘Electricity Ombudsman’) holding that the reductions in contract demand allowed by the petitioner were permanent. According to the petitioner-HPSEBL, reduction in the contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA was temporary. The contract demand affects the tariff charges for ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1, hence the writ petition. 2. The Case [Concerning ACL-I Unit (Suli) of respondent No. 1] 2(i) On 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) respondent No. 1 applied for reduction of contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA without any change in the existing connected load for 132 KV connection . Vide Office Order dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure P-6) petitioner-HPSEBL sanctioned the reduction in the contract demand. 2(ii) On 29.09.2015 (Annexure P-7) respondent No. 1 applied for further reduction in the contract demand from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA. Petitioner-HPSEBL allowed the request and passed order on 09.11.20215 (Annexure P-8). 3 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) 2(iii) Third request for reducing the contract demand was made by respondent No. 1 on 27.05.2016 (page 85 of the paper-book) to bring it down from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA. The above was accepted by the petitioner-HPSEBL on 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-10). 2(iv) The last and fourth request for reducing the contract demand was made by respondent No. 1 on 01.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) for further reducing it to 32000 KVA from the existing 35000 KVA. The petitioner-HPSEBL allowed the request on 01.12.2016 (Annexure P-12). 2(v) On 07.02.2020 (Annexure P-15) the petitioner-HPSEBL issued a notice to respondent No. 1 demanding charges from ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1 amount to 91,80,000/- & 11,47,500/- for ACL-II Unit of respondent No. 1 for Financial Year 2019-2020 mentioning therein reduction in contract demand was temporary. This was followed by another notice on 10.02.2020 (Annexure P-16). On 25.02.2020 petitioner-HPSEBL addressed office communication (Annexure P-17) to respondent No. 1 referring to the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018 dated 31.07.2018 published in the Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh on 07.08.2018 as applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2019 (in short 4 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) the ‘2018-Regulations’). The notice conveyed that sanctioned contract demand in favour of respondent No. 1 was 39000 KVA whereas bill had been issued for 32000 KVA for ten months in a financial year up to January, 2020; Such billing being contrary to 2018-Regulations, corrected demand charges were to be deposited by respondent No. 1 for 90% of 7000 KVA (39000 KVA – 32000 KVA=7000 KVA) x 425/- x 4 months. Petitioner thereafter deducted the charges from running bills of respondent No. 1. 2(vi) With grievance against the demand charges levied by the petitioner-HPSEBL, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 21.07.2020 before the Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum, HPSEBL (in short ‘the Grievances Redressal Forum’). Respondent No. 1, inter alia, prayed for direction to HPSEBL to refund a sum of 1,83,60,000/- deducted from its running bills. Direction was sought to HPSEBL not to deduct any amount from the running bills of respondent No. 1 on account of contract demand as according to it the 2018-Regulations were not applicable to the case. The Grievances Redressal Forum found respondent No. 1’s claim to be devoid of merit and dismissed it on 31.07.2021 (Annexure P-20). 2(vii) Respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the order passed by the Grievances Redressal Forum before respondent No. 2-Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity Ombudsman 5 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) allowed the appeal on 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-23). The order passed by the Grievances Redressal Forum on 31.07.2021 was quashed and set aside. Petitioner-HPSEBL was directed to treat contract demand in respect of ACL-I Unit at 32000 KVA of respondent No. 1 as permanent as on 01.04.2019. Accordingly amount charged extra from respondent No. 1 was directed to be refunded alongwith interest as mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, petitioner-HPSEBL has preferred this writ petition. 3. Dispute in this case revolves around the question as to whether contract demand reduced from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA in favour of ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1 was permanent or temporary. Petitioner-HPSEBL asserts this reduction to be temporary whereas respondent No. 1–Company terms it permanent. The nature of reduction would determine the tariff and thus assumes significance. The question becomes more relevant in view of the 2018-Regulations (Second Amendment to Electricity Supply Code-2009) notified on 31.07.2018 and brought into force w.e.f. 01.04.2019. These Regulations incorporated the following proviso to para 3.10 (introduced by First Amendment) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2009 (in short the ‘Supply Code-2009):- 6 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) “Provided that the consumer shall not be eligible for temporary revision of contract demand to a value other than the full sanctioned contract demand for a total period of more than six months in one financial year:” … … According to 2018-Regulations, temporary revision of contract demand cannot be to a value other than full sanctioned contract demand for a total period of more than six months in a financial year. Respondent No.1’s case is that all reductions of contract demand in its favour right up to 32000 KVA were permanent and sanctioned prior to the coming into force of 2018- Regulations. The stand of petitioner-HPSEBL is otherwise. 3(i) Before the Grievances Redressal Forum, respondent No.1’s stand was that its contract demand had been reduced on permanent basis before coming into force of 2018-Regulations. The 2018-Regulations thus would not be applicable to its case. Petitioner-HPSEBL’s defence before the Grievances Redressal Forum was that respondent No. 1 was liable to be charged as per the 2018-Regulations. Reduction of contract demand from 40000KVA to 39000KVA was permanent in nature but further revisions viz. from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA, from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA and from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA were all temporary reductions. The Grievances Redressal Forum on 31.07.2021 7 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) somehow presumed reduction in contract demand from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA to be temporary. The Forum also presumed that respondent No. 1 had admitted reduction in the contract demand from 39000 KVA up to 32000 KVA being temporary and on the basis of this presumption of admission by respondent No. 1 of the reduction of contract demand being temporary in nature held against respondent No. 1. Relevant excerpts from the order reads as under:- “18. It’s an admitted fact that on the recommendation of Superintending Engineer (OP) Solan, Chief Engineer (OP) South HPSEBL, Shimla-4 vide his memo No. CEO/MSC-42 (Darla) Unit – Suli)/2013-14 – 10925-29 dated 05.08.2013, has reduced the contract Demand permanently from 40000 KVA to 39000KVA without change in sanctioned connected load 47180 KW (ACL-I) on the Complainant request. 19. It is also undisputed that the DE(OP) South HPSEBL, Shimla-4 office order No. HPSEB/CEO/ M&C-42 (Darla/Unit Suli/2015-16 – 2361-65 dated 21.05.2015 had sanctioned extension load from 47180 KW to 53160 KW with 39000 KVA contract Demand, on the request of consumer. 20. The fact is also established from record that A.E. HPSEBL has accorded reduction of contract demand from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA at 132 KV supply voltage in favor of M/s GACL (Unit Suli) Darlaghat. This temporary reduction has been granted as per provisions of HP Electricity Supply Code 2009 amended from time to time. 8 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) 21. The fact is also undisputed that the Complainant has further reduced contract demand from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA in 2016 temporally under above said provisions. 22. It is also admitted fact that the Complainant had further reduced contract demand temporally to 32000 KVA on 01.12.2016 from the HPSEBL on 132 KV for the 1st Unit. … … … … 29. We have also observed from record that the temporary reduction in contract demand in both the units have been made by the Complainant during FY 2015-16, due to less demand of product in the market. It has also been observed by the Forum that the rights of complainant have been reserved under Regulations, 2014 to utilize contract demand temporally reduced to 32000 KVA for ACL-I, with contract demand up to 39000 KVA or any value in between. Similarly the said Regulations of 2014 and 2018 apply to temporary reduction to 24000 KVA with contract demand up to 25000 KVA for ACL-II or any value in between, since maximum limit of 39000 KVA and 25000 KVA is permanent sanctioned contract demand, against connections ACL-I & ACL-II respectively, if so desired by the Complainant. 30. In view of discussions & observations made here-in- above, we find the claim of the complainant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- charged vide impugned Annexure C-7 to C-10, devoid of any merit and substance and which is also not relevant to second amendment to HP Electricity Supply Code, made in the 9 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) year, 2018. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed accordingly.” 3(ii). Had respondent No. 1 not filed appeal against the order passed by Grievances Redressal Forum, the same would have become final and the petitioner would have charged by taking all reductions in contract demand from 39000 KVA to 32000 KVA as permanent. Respondent No.1, however, did lodge an appeal before respondent No. 2-the Electricity Ombudsman against the order passed by the Forum where petitioner altered its stand and submitted that though reductions from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA, from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA & further from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA were permanent, but the last reduction from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA was temporary. The Electricity Ombudsman while rejecting this plea, inter alia, recorded a specific finding that had reduction from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA been temporary, there was no occasion for petitioner-HPSEBL to have issued sanction order, which was otherwise not required in case of temporary reduction in contract demand. The Ombudsman treated the last reduction also as permanent and decided in favour of respondent No. 1. 4 Consideration I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and considered the case file. In my considered view, reduction of 10 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) contract demand from 40000 KVA up to 32000 KVA in favour of ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1 has to be construed as permanent. This is for the following reasons:- 4(i) Firstly, it may be noticed that petitioner-HPSEBL itself appears to be in dilemma about nature of reduction of the contract demand sanctioned by it. Before the Grievances Redressal Forum its case was that reduction in the contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA was permanent but all subsequent reductions thereafter were temporary. Portion relevant to this effect from the reply filed by the HPSEBL (respondent therein) before the Grievances Redressal Forum is extracted hereinafter:- “3 to 5: That in reply to these paras it is submitted that complaint bearing account No. ACL-initially applied for connection on connected load 47180 KW with contract demand 40000 KVA at 132 KV Sub Station Darlaghat (Chamakripul) on the request of the complainant sanctioned vide Chief Engineer (Op) South, HPSEB Ltd. Shimla office order No. HPSEB/CEO/M&C-42(Darla/Unit) Suli/2009-7384- 88 dated 22/08/2009. The revision of contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA without change in existing connected load had been sanctioned vide Chief Engineer (Op) Sough, HPSEB Ltd., Shimla office order No. HPSEB/CEO/M&C-42(Darla/Unit Suli)2013-14-10925-29 dated 05/08/2013 (Annex R-I). It is submitted that extension of load from 47180 KW to 53106 KW with 39000 KVA contract has been sanctioned vide Chief Engineer (Op) 11 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) South, HPSEB Ltd., Shimla office order No. HPSEB/CEO/ M&C-42(Darla/Unit Suli)2015-16-2361-65 dated 21/05/2015. It is submitted that in the year 2015 complainant applied for reduction/revision of his contract demand temporarily from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA and in the year 2016 the complainant further reduced /revised his contract demand temporarily to 35000 KVA. It is further on 1.12.2016 the complainant again reduced his contract demand temporarily to 32000 KVA.” At the appellate stage before respondent No. 2-Electricity Ombudsman, petitioner-HPSEBL took the stand that not only reduction in contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA was permanent but further reductions from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA and from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA were also permanent. However, last reduction from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA was temporary. The above stand has been maintained by the petitioner-HPSEBL in this writ petition as well that reduction of contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA was temporary. 4(ii) According to the petitioner-HPSEBL but for reduction of contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA, all other reductions were permanent as these reductions were accompanied with Application & Agreement Forms (in short ‘A&A Form’) and were duly sanctioned by the competent authority. Whereas, according to respondent No. 1, even this reduction was permanent in nature. 12 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) After perusing the record, respondent No. 2-Electricity Ombudsman made following pertinent observations on facts:-  Sanction of reduction in contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA was accorded by the Chief Engineer (Op) South on 05.08.2013. The request was accompanied with A&A Form. Neither the request nor the sanction terms the reduction as temporary.  Request for reduction of contract demand from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA was accompanied with A&A Form. The reduction was sanctioned by the Assistant Engineer on 9.11.2025. Neither the request for reduction of contract demand nor sanction thereof uses the word temporary, though while sanctioning the reduction, the authority mentioned clause 3.10 of the H.P. Electricity Supply Code 2009 (First Amendment 2014).  For the request of reduction of contract demand from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA, A&A Form was not available on record. HPSEBL’s stand was that this request was accompanied by A&A Form. The sanction of reduction in the contract demand was not on record. HPSEBL terms the reduction as permanent though neither the word temporary was used in the request for 13 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) reduction of contract demand nor in the sanction thereof.  For further reduction in the contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA there was no mention of A&A Form. Sanction though had been accorded by the Assistant Engineer for reducing the contract demand. Neither in the request for reduction nor sanction thereof the word temporary has been used.  Processing fee has been paid by respondent No. 1 for all the reductions. 4(iii) Before the Grievances Redessal Forum, petitioner- HPSEBL’s stand was that save and except reduction in the contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA, all other reductions were temporary. Before the Electricity Ombudsman, petitioner-HPSEBL changed its stand that but for last reduction from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA all other reductions were permanent in nature; Reduction from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA has to be deemed temporary as it was neither accompanied by A&A Form nor was it sanctioned. The Electricity Ombudsman observed on facts that for reducing the contract demand from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA though sanction was not on record, yet HPSEBL acknowledged this reduction to be permanent in nature and further for reduction in the 14 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA, A&A Form was not there but sanction was granted by Assistant Engineer on 01.12.2016. There was likelihood of A&A Forms having been submitted by respondent No. 1 but the same being not available in record. Sanction having been issued, reduction can be treated as permanent. The Electricity Ombudsman accordingly held as under:- “14. From the facts, which has also been acknowledged by the respondents now at this court that the reduction of Contract Demand in ACL-1 till 35000 kVA was permanent since the Complainant have submitted the A&A Forms. However, they informed that reduction from 35000 kVA to 32000 kVA may be considered as temporary since no such A&A forms are available with them. … … 16. In case the Contract Demand is to be reduced temporarily, the Consumer is required to give one month’s notice and is not required to obtain any sanction from the Licensee. In ACL-1 Unit, the reduction in Contract Demand from 39000 to 37000 and then to 35000 kVA, the A&A Forms have been issued and sanctions have also been issued for two reductions but for last reduction to 35000 KVA, no such sanction is on record but have been acknowledged by the Respondents as permanent now. A change in stand taken by the Respondents at Forum wherein they have considered all the reductions as temporary. 17. Now for reduction in Contract Demand from 35000 to 32000 kVA, there is no A&A form on record but sanction 15 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) have been issued by the Respondent No. 3 on 01/12/2016. There is more likelihood of having submitted the A&A form by the Complainant but the same is not on record of the sub-division at Darlaghat. Since the sanction has been issued, the Contract Demand reduction can be treated as permanent whereas as per sub-clause (c) of Clause 3.10 of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009, no such sanction was required to be issued in case the reduction was to be treated as temporary. 18. That means all the reductions in Contract Demand till 32000 kVA can be treated as permanent Contracted Demand in respect of ACL-1 Unit as on 01/04/2019, effective date of 2nd amendment in Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009. … … 21 The Respondents have in their reply stated that the Complainant have reduced their demand temporarily whereas no where either in request letters of the Complaint and the response letters/sanctions by the Respondents, temporary word has been used. … … 24. However, as explained above, as on 01/04/2019, effective date of 2nd amendment in Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009, the Contract Demand in respect of ACL-1 unit can be treated as permanent since either the A&A forms/or sanction were there which were not required for temporary reductions. Whereas for ACL-2, the reduction in Contract Demand have not been supported with either A&A Form or sanction and as such the same can be treated as temporary at 24000 kVA but 16 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) the permanent sanctioned Contracted Demand shall remain at 25000 kVA.” The view formed by the Electricity Ombudsman from perusal of record, the record being not in dispute is pragmatic & sound view. 4(iv) Further, for temporary reduction of contract demand, procedure prescribed is entirely different and is governed by Clause 3.10(c) of the Electricity Supply Code 2009, which was introduced by first Amendment of the Code notified on 11.06.2014 published on 16.06.2014. The original para 3.10 inserted in the Supply Code-2009 vide Notification dated 11.06.2014 (First Amendment) reads as under:- “3.10 Temporary revision of contract Demand:- The consumer to whom two part tariff is applicable shall be entitled to revise their contract demand within the total sanctioned contract demand without surrendering their lien of the total sanctioned contract demand, subject to the following condition:- (a) that the consumer shall not reduce the contract demand to lesser than 50% of the total sanctioned contract demand subject to a further condition that the contract demand shall not be reduced below the lowest limit of contract demand as per the tariff category (or any sub- category thereof) applicable to him; (b) that the consumer shall not be entitled to revise the contract demand more than twice a year subject to the 17 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) condition that the time gap between two successive revisions shall not be less than 3 months; (c) that the consumer shall give a notice of at least one month to the licensee before revising the contract demand under this mechanism. Even though the consumer shall not be required to obtain any sanction from the licensee for change in contract demand under this mechanism, he, so as to avoid the disputes shall ensure that the notice(s) for such revision are duly served by him upon the licensee through register post or through courier service or is delivered by hand against signed receipt therefor; (d) that in cases where the contract demand is reduced under this mechanism, such reduced contract demand shall be applicable for billing purposes; and (e) that in cases where the consumer gets his contract demand reduced permanently, the limit under clause (a) shall be considered with respect to such reduced contract demand, but such reduction shall not be considered to have been made under this mechanism and the time gap of 3 months as per clause (b) shall be reckoned from the date from which the demand was last revised under this mechanism.” … … For availing temporary reduction in contract demand, a consumer was only required to give one month notice to the licensee before revising the contract demand. The consumer was neither required to make any request nor obtain sanction from the licensee for change in the contract demand. It is thus obvious that in 18 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) case respondent No.1-Company desired only temporary reduction, there was no need for it to take sanction from petitioner-HPSEBL. In view of procedure followed by respondent No. 1 in seeking reduction in contract demand and sanction granted by petitioner, it is evident that both the parties were aware and had proceeded that respondent No. 1 had applied for reduction in the contract demand on permanent basis. The applications were accordingly considered as such by the petitioner- HPSEBL. The reduction, sanctioned by the petitioner-HPSEBL including from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA has to be construed to be permanent. 4(v) As per 2018-Regulations, the consumer shall not be eligible for temporary revision of contract demand to a value other than the full sanctioned contract demand for a total period of more than six months in one financial year. The 2018-Regulations came into force with prospective effect. The 2018-Regulations are not applicable to the case of respondent No. 1-Company. These Regulations came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2019 i.e. much later to the reduction in contract demand sanctioned in respondent No.1’s favour. Respondent No. 1-Company had already been sanctioned permanent reduction in contract demand prior to coming into force of 2018-Regulations. 19 ( 2025:HHC:25143-DB ) It appears that the Grievances Redressal Forum had dismissed respondent No. 1’s complaint merely relying upon HPSEBL’s submissions. The submissions urged for respondent No. 1 were neither verified nor examined by it. The Electricity Ombudsman carried out elaborate exercise of examining the factual matrix, record of the case, respective submissions made for the parties and also the legal position, before coming to just conclusion that reductions in the contract demand sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1-Company were all permanent. No other point was urged. 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman on 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-23). Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge July 30 , 2025 (PK)