2026:HHC:34645 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13989 of 2026 Decided on: 17.08.2026 Dinesh Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr.Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, assailed order dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Authority on his representation, in terms whereof, representation of the petitioner stands rejected by assigning the reason that the issue which has been raised by the petitioner in the representation is pending adjudication by way of reference before the Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, this Court is of the considered view that rejection of representation of the petitioner in the facts of the case is not sustainable in law. 4. As it is borne out from the impugned order itself that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:34645 issue raised by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court, the Authority would have been well advised to have had kept the representation pending till the reference was answered by the Hon’ble Larger Bench and the Authority could have thereafter taken a decision on the representation in light of the adjudication on the issue by the Hon’ble Larger Bench. In the absence of the Authority having awaited the outcome of the reference that is before the Hon’ble Larger Bench, dismissal of representation of the petitioner simply on the ground that the issue is pending adjudication by way of reference before the Hon’ble Larger Bench, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Therefore, on this short count this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. The representation filed by the petitioner is revived and it is ordered that the competent Authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner after the reference pending before the Hon’ble Larger Bench is answered. As learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order in the present case has not been passed by a competent Authority, which is also evident from the impugned order itself which says that the order is by the approval of the competent Authority, this Court impresses upon the competent Authority to itself pass the order rather than delegating the duty of deciding the representation to some other Officer. 3 2026:HHC:34645 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 17, 2026 (Rishi)