1 2026:HHC:30236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4226 of 2019 Decided on: 21.07.2026. M/s Next Star Digital …..Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice under Section 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (in short, the Act) was issued to the petitioner on 18.08.2016. In terms of said notice, surprise inspection of the petitioner’s premises was conducted on 18.08.2016 wherein following was observed:- “You are violating the contract demand regularly. At the time of inspection maximum demand was found to be 1065 KVA against the contract demand of 820 KVA HT to HT1.” The aforesaid notice was thus based upon the premise that during inspection conducted of petitioner’s premises on 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:30236 18.08.2016, it was found to be regularly violating contract demand; At the time of inspection, maximum demand was found to 1065 KVA against the contract demand of 820 KVA HT to HT1. In view of petitioner’s having been found to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, and this fact being covered under Section 126 of the Act, petitioner was advised either to remove the unauthorized extended load or to regularize the same within one month from the date of issuance of notice. The failure to do so was to entail the consequences envisaged under Section 126 of the Act as also, under the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2009. The above was followed by provisional order of assessment dated 28.09.2016 for unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner. The provisional assessment order was based upon the same inspection/ inspection note dated 18.08.2016. However, the provisional order of assessment went a step further from the notice dated 18.08.2016 issued to the petitioner on the basis of inspection note inasmuch as in the provisional assessment order dated 28.08.2016, the observation was made that during inspection dated 18.08.2016, following acts of 3 2026:HHC:30236 unauthorized use of electricity were noticed in petitioner’s premises:- “The meter was showing 1065 KVA as max. demand against the sanctioned contract demand of 820 KVA. Moreover the connected load was found 1213 KW against the sanctioned load of 818 KW. This clearly shows that you are violating the contract demand and connected load. This covers under Section 126 of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007. The tariff has also been changed from LS HT1 to HT2.” Evidently, the petitioner filed its response to the provisional assessment order on 04.10.2016. The same was not considered satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Final assessment order was issued on 03.11.2016. Petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division on 14.11.2019. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Heard & considered the case file. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though notice under Section 126 of the Act that was issued to the petitioner on 18.08.2016 only mentioned that at the time of inspection, the maximum demand was found to be 1065 KVA against the contract demand of 820 KVA yet the provisional assessment order mentioned that in addition to above, 4 2026:HHC:30236 connected load at the petitioner’s premises at the time of inspection conducted on 18.08.2016 was found as 1213.00 KW against sanctioned load of 818.00 KW. This has also found its way in the final assessment order. Prima- facie, petitioner’s contention appears to be justified as no such mention of petitioner’s drawing excess connected load than sanctioned has been mentioned in the notice dated 18.08.2016 issued to the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act. Notice under Section 126 of the Act issued on 18.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) as also the provisional assessment order dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) are both based upon same inspection carried out of the petitioner’s premises on 18.08.2016, yet they contain different observations. This aspect has not been delved into by the Divisional Commissioner. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla dismissing petitioner’s appeal under Section 127 of the Act is set-aside. Matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh decision of petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law. 5 2026:HHC:30236 Parties through their learned counsel are directed to remain present before the Divisional Commissioner on 07.08.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 21, 2026 Judge yogesh