M/S Mahasu Peak Resorts and Recreations Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others

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

¶17

Office Fagu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. Petitioner is

¶18

consumer of electricity since the year 2002-03 under a

¶19

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶20

2

¶21

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).

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

3

¶25

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:-

¶26

“(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.”

¶27

In terms of above definition, billing disputes of

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

4

¶31

the billing disputes raised in this writ petition. Pending

¶32

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

May 11, 2026 Mukesh

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

M/S Mahasu Peak Resorts and Recreations Pvt. Ltd. v. the Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahasu Peak Resorts and Recreations Pvt. Ltd. v. the Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Kumari Vs Gopal Beri

Banti Ram Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Rekha Sharma Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Anmol Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vidya Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pyar Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others