IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7216 of 2026 Decided on: 11th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s Mahasu Peak Resorts & Recreations Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus HPSEB Limited and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Inder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sankhyan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Mohit Sankhyan, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that it is running a resort in the name and style of M/s Mahasu Peak Resorts & Recreations Private Limited at Village Gallu, Post Office Fagu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. Petitioner is consumer of electricity since the year 2002-03 under a 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 specific consumer ID supplied to it. According to the petitioner, illegal sundry charges amounting to Rs.5,57,056/- have been imposed upon the petitioner in the electricity bill dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued to it. Petitioner represented against imposition of aforesaid sundry charges on 19.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), but the respondents have carried forward the sundry charges under the head ‘total arrears’ in the next month’s electricity bill dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents’ demand of sundry charges is not justified as no proceedings under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for petitioner’s alleged unauthorized use or theft have been initiated against it. Neither there has been any inspection of petitioner’s premises in that regard nor any assessment order has been passed. 4. I find force in the preliminary objection taken by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has alternate statutory remedy for the redressal of its grievances under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 (in short ‘2013 3 Regulations’). These regulations have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (r) and (s) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 181 read with Sub-sections (5) to (8) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and all other powers enabling in this behalf. In terms of 2013 Regulations, ‘grievance’ has been defined as under:- “(e) “grievance” means, and includes any complaint, relating to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance 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 includes billing disputes of any nature and matters related to safety of the distribution system having potential of endangering life or property.” In terms of above definition, billing disputes of any nature 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 regarding billing disputes before the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition to stand disposed of. It is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of its grievances with respect to 4 the billing disputes raised in this writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 11, 2026 Judge Mukesh