2026:HHC:30180 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.473 of 2025 Decided on: 22.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s Patel Infrastructure Limited …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & Anr. . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether this writ petition is maintainable against the short assessment pointed out by the respondent-State Electricity Board (Board) in its office letter dated 06.11.2024, is the first question to be considered before venturing into merits of the matter. 2. The Case. 2(i) Petitioner’s grievance is to the office letter dated 06.11.2024, issued by the respondent-Board to the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:30180 petitioner. As per this office letter, during scrutiny of ledger account for the period April 2022 to March 2023, a short assessment amounting to Rs. 25,96,961/- was pointed out. This was attributed to wrong billing on incorrect application of Multiplying Factor 1 (MF 1) instead of MF 2 for the period 04.08.2022 till the date of issuance of the office letter. Petitioner was accordingly directed to deposit the amount in question within fifteen days, failing which, amount was to be charged in petitioner’s monthly energy bill. 2(ii) Petitioner preferred a representation on 24.12.2024, asserting that it had been regularly paying monthly energy bills; There had been no outstanding amount pending for payment; The respondents-Board had incorporated incorrect details concerning multiplying factor in the notice dated 06.11.2024 hence, request was made to review the short assessment communication notice dated 06.11.2024. 2(iii) In its response dated 26.12.2024, the respondents-Board reiterated that short assessment office letter /notice dated 06.11.2024, had to be served upon the petitioner due to wrong application of multiplying factor i.e. 3 2026:HHC:30180 1 instead of 2 in accordance with Himachal Pradesh Electricity Sales Manual instructions No. 26.4.1, which reads as under:- “In case of CT/PT meters where the accuracy of the meter is not involved and it is a case of incorrect connections, defective CTs/PTs, genuine calculations & mistakes etc., charges would be adjusted in favour of the HPSEBL/Consumer as the case may be for the period the mistake/defect continued.” Petitioner was advised to deposit the amount, failing which, the Board was to proceed in the matter under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (The Act in short) as also HPSEBL Ltd Sales Manual Instructions. The petitioner did not deposit the amount, consequently, the electricity bill was issued to it for the months of November/December 2024 including the charges of Rs. 25,96,961/-, quantified as short assessment under office letter/notice dated 06.11.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition, seeking quashing of recovery notice dated 06.11.2024 as also the decision of the respondents-Board dated 26.12.2024, rejecting petitioner’s prayer. Vide orders dated 07.01.2025 and 10.01.2025 passed in this writ petition, subject to deposit of 50% of the 4 2026:HHC:30180 amount mentioned in the office letter/notice dated 06.11.2024, recovery pursuant to the aforesaid order was stayed. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent-Board about this petition being not maintainable in view of Section 42(5) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel on both sides on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. 3(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- Board submits that in view of Section 42(5) of the Indian Electricity Act read with H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 (in short 2013 Regulations), the jurisdiction to decide the grievance raised by the petitioner lies before the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the short assessment on account of alleged wrong application of multiplying factor by the respondent- Board and on that basis respondent-Board seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 25,96,961/-, cannot be construed as “deficiency in service” in view of Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar 5 2026:HHC:30180 Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others2, specific reliance was placed upon following para of the aforesaid decision:- “19 . The raising of an additional demand in the form of “short assessment notice”, on the ground that in the bills raised during a particular period of time, the multiply factor was wrongly mentioned, cannot tantamount to deficiency in service. If a licensee discovers in the course of audit or otherwise that a consumer has been short billed, the licensee is certainly entitled to raise a demand. So long as the consumer does not dispute the correctness of the claim made by the licensee that there was short assessment, it is not open to the consumer to claim that there was any deficiency. This is why, the National Commission, in the impugned order correctly points out that it is a case of “escaped assessment” and not “deficiency in service” In view of above, it was asserted that action of the respondent-Board in ordering recovery of the amount in question on account of short assessment due to wrong billing by incorrectly applying the multiplying factor, does not amount to deficiency in service, therefore, petitioner is not required to approach the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum as it does not amount to deficiency in service. 2 (2021)20 SCC 200 6 2026:HHC:30180 3(ii) Petitioner’s contention does not hold force. Prem Cottex2 was a case where dispute was raised before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Form under the Consumer Disputes Protection Act. In the instant writ petition, respondents do not project the instant to be a case of deficiency in service on their part. The issue involved at this stage is whether for the grievance raised by the petitioner, should it approach, the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum which is the statutory alternative mechanism provided to the petitioner for redressal of its grievance in terms of 2013 Regulations. Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines ‘consumer’ as under:- 2(15). “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.” As per above section, consumer means a person who is supplied electricity for his own use by a licensee/ or 7 2026:HHC:30180 the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or under any law for the time being in force. The definition also includes within its ambit any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licence/ Government or such other person as the case may be. Section 42(5) of the Act stipulates that every distribution licensee, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, shall establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. The H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (r) & (s) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 181 read with Sub-Section (5) to (8) of Section 42 of Electricity Act, 2003 and all other powers enabling in this regard. The 2013 Regulations define ‘grievance’ as under: - “(d) “grievance” means, and includes any complaint, relating to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performances which has been undertaken to be 8 2026:HHC:30180 performed by a licensee in pursuance of a licence, contract, agreement or under the Electricity Supply Code or in relation to the Distribution Performance Standards of the licensees, as specified by the Commission, and includes billing disputes of any nature and matters related to safety of the distribution system having potential of endangering life or property.” As per above definition of ‘grievance’, any complaint not just relating to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, but also with respect to nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed by a licensee in pursuance of a licence, contract, agreement or under Electricity Supply Code or in relation to the Distribution Performance Standards of the licensees, as specified by Commission also falls within the ambit of definition of word ‘grievance’. The dispute raised in the instant petition, relating to nature and manner of performance which had been undertaken to be performed by licensee pursuant to licence/contract/ agreement falls within the ambit of ‘grievance’. The 2013 Regulations provide complete mechanism for the redressal of such grievance. Thus, the petitioner has statutory remedy for the redressal of its grievances qua the dispute raised in the writ petition before Himachal Pradesh Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. 9 2026:HHC:30180 The definition of ‘grievance’ under 2013 Regulations as extracted earlier ‘includes billing disputes of any nature’. The petitioner is also covered under definition of ‘consumer’ within Section 2(15) of the Act, therefore, the alternative mechanism provided under Section 42(5) of the Act is definitely available to the petitioner. Hence, there is merit in the preliminary objection of the respondent-Board that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in terms of Section 42(5) of the Act. In case such remedy is availed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the petition so preferred by the petitioner, shall be examined on its merits, in accordance with law, by the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum without regard to limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 22, 2026 Judge R.Atal