CWP-21107-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.135 CWP-21107-2026 Decided on:14.07.2026 Gulshan Narang . . . Petitioner Versus The Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Rhytm Katyal, Advocate, Mr. Pratyush Arora, Advocate and Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the interim order dated 22.06.2026, Annexure P-1, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, in appeal no.19 of 2026, to the limited extent the petitioner has been directed to deposit forty per cent of the exact disputed amount within ten days of issuance of the order. 2. Learned counsel contended that aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2026, Annexure P-10, passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) the petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal before the Ombudsman, which was registered on 27.05.2026. Alongwith the appeal, he filed an application, Annexure P-11, seeking exemption from pre-deposit under Regulation 3.18 (iii) read with 3.15 (i) and proviso to Regulation 2.26 MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.15 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-21107-2026 -2- of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2020. The application was neither heard, nor was any notice thereupon issued to the respondents. However, the interim order dated 22.06.2026, was passed in the appeal directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive action, including disconnection of electricity supply, subject to the petitioner depositing forty per cent of the disputed amount. 3. Faced with this situation, the petitioner sent an email dated 03.07.2026, Annexure P-13, to the Ombudsman seeking a decision on his application for exemption filed along with the appeal. Thereupon, he received an email dated 06.07.2026, Annexure P-2, from the Ombudsman conveying the order rejecting the application for relaxation and directing him to deposit balance twenty per cent of the disputed amount (after adjustment of twenty per cent already deposited before the CGRF) within fifteen days but before the scheduled date of hearing, i.e., 20.07.2026. He contends that the order is not maintainable as the mandatory requirement under Regulation 4.4 to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice has not been complied with. The order has been passed without getting any response from the respondents and/or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that no notice of the application was issued, nor any reply was filed. He, however, submits that the matter is listed for hearing on 20.07.2026, and the issue can be taken up before the Ombudsman on that date. 5. Heard. 6. Considering the submissions and the facts aforementioned, this Court finds that the Principles of Natural Justice have not been adhered to MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.15 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-21107-2026 -3- while passing the order dated 06.07.2026, declining the petitioner’s prayer for relaxation of the condition to pre-deposit balance twenty per cent of the disputed amount. As per Regulation 4.4, it is mandated that ‘the Ombudsman shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure.’ Further, Regulation 4.6 deals with power to relax and requires that ‘The Commission may, by general or special order, for reasons to be recorded in writing and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected, may relax any of the provisions of these Regulations on its own or on an application made before it by an interested person.’ These requirements have not been complied with before passing the order aforementioned, as the affected parties, including the petitioner, were not heard. This infringement of the basic principles of law as well as the laid down procedure makes the order unsustainable. 7. In view thereof, the petition is partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.07.2026, with a direction to the Ombudsman to decide afresh the petitioner’s application for exemption, Annexure P-11, after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. And till that decision is taken, the direction issued to the respondents vide order dated 22.06.2026 not to initiate any coercive action, shall remain in force. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.15 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment