1 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1063 of 2020 Decided on: 18.05.2026 M/s Him Fresh Produce Private Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Upadhayay, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the respondent Authority may be directed to refund to the petitioner Company the excess amount of ₹31,18, 812/- (rupees thirty one lacks eighteen thousand eight hundred and twelve); (ii). That further, the respondents may be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above amount from the date actual SOP was provided by the respondents to the CA Store of the petitioner from already existing 22 KV Baghi Feeder till the date of actual payment of the amount as claimed in prayer (i) above alongwith interest.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. The case set up by the petitioner is that:- 2(i). The petitioner had established Controlled Atmosphere Store (CA Store) with capacity of 2000 MT for storage of fresh fruits/vegetables at Mohal Ghunda, Village Bagori, P.O. Gumma, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. Vide Annexure P-2 dated 09.03.2010, the Commissioner Industries, Himachal Pradesh conveyed the petitioner about in-principle approval of its proposal by the State Level Single Window Clearance and Monitoring Authority in meeting convened on 08.02.2010 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The condition relevant for the purpose of present petitioner is extracted as under:- “2. 380 KW power load can be made available at 22 KV supply voltage from 66/22 KV, Hulli sub station during July, 2011 as demanded. You are, therefore advised to apply to HPSEB for power availability certificate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this communication.” In terms of afore extracted condition No.2, required 380 KW power load was to be made available at 22 KV supply voltage to the petitioner from 66/22 KV, Hulli Sub- Station during July, 2011. The petitioner company 3 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) was advised to apply to respondent- State Electricity Board for power availability certificate within the period stipulated in the office letter. 2(ii). On 22.07.2014, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, HPSEB, Rohru issued the Power Availability Certificate (PAC) to the petitioner company for a load of 339.50 KW with 378 KVA Contract Demand. In terms of the communication, the petitioner was required to deposit ₹35,000/- as earnest money and ₹6,25,000/- as advance cost share towards infrastructure development charges. The petitioner paid the requisite amount. As per clause 14 of the office letter dated 22.07.2014, power for 339.5 KW load could have been made available to the petitioner on 22KV supply voltage from Hulli Sub-Station, after commissioning petitioner was to bear expenditure of supply of power as per HPERC regulations. 2(iii). The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Jubbal vide his communication dated 01.08.2014, requested the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub-Division, HPSEBL, Kotkhai to frame necessary estimate for sanction. The work was to be executed by the petitioner at its own level in terms of its request. 4 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) 2(iv). The petitioner vide its letter dated 19.01.2015 apprised the officials of respondent- Board that though power supply proposal as per estimate was from Hulli 66/22 KV Sub-Station to the proposed site (C.A. Store) on independent feeder but the owners of private land falling in proposed line route had objected to its execution; They were not ready to give their land. The petitioner, therefore, requested for power supply to the proposed site from existing 22 KV Gumma Baghi feeder. Power to the CA Store of the petitioner was finally supplied from the power connection originally proposed to be supplied from existing 22KV Baghi feeder. 2(v). According to the petitioner, such feeder was closer in distance to the CA Store as compared to Hulli Sub-Station at Gumma that was proposed and approved in PAC by the respondents. According to the petitioner, power was supplied to the petitioner at no additional expenditure rather at much lesser expenditure. Petitioner represented to the respondents on 05.08.2015 (Annexure P-7) seeking refund of the amount allegedly paid by it in excess for the power supply to CA Store at Bagori, Kotkhai, H.P. During hearing of the case, reliance was also placed upon Annexure P-11 dated 12.05.2017, 5 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) communication addressed by Sr.Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Jubbal to emphasize that respondent official had recommended refund of an amount of ₹31,18,812/- to the petitioner. It is in the aforesaid factual background that petitioner has prayed for refund of an amount of ₹31,18,812/- that petitioner has been charged allegedly in excess for power supply to its CA Store. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 42(5) of the H.P. Electricity Act read with H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 (in short, 2013 regulations). According to learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- Electricity Board, the jurisdiction to decide the grievance raised by the petitioner lies before the Forum. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has also highlighted by portions from the reply disputing the amount claimed by the petitioner towards refund. Following para of the reply was in particular highlighted:- 6 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) “11. That the contents of Para No.14 of the petition are wrong and incorrect hence denied. It is submitted that inadvertently, in letter dated 12.05.2017 at Sr. No.VIII, balance amount of the SOP estimate amounting to ₹31,18,812/- has been intimated by the Sr. Executive Engineer Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Jubbal to the Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle HPSEBL, Rohru. However, as submitted in the above paras, revised estimate to the tune of ₹14,27,470/- was framed to cover the cost of the strengthening of ACSR conductor in 22KV Baghi feeder from Paragti Nagar to Him Fresh. It is submitted the earlier estimate was technically sanctioned for ₹39,98,400/- but the cost of 400KVA transformer amounting to ₹7,00,000/- which has been purchased by the petitioner was deducted thus net amount deposited by the firm was ₹32,98,400/- instead of ₹39,98,400/-.” 4. 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 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 7 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) 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, which ever 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 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 8 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) 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. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. It is for the petitioner to avail appropriate 9 ( 2026:HHC:17818 ) remedy for the redressal of its grievance raised in this writ petition. It is however, clarified that period spent in pursuing this writ petition shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation. In case the petitioner resorts to statutory remedy, efforts be made for expeditious disposal of the said petition in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 18, 2026 Judge yogesh