Electricity Ombudsman Can't Decide Review Petition In Absence Of Both Parties: HP High Court
Mehak Aggarwal
6 Dec 2025 6:25 PM IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Ombudsman while deciding a review petition cannot act contrary to Regulation 37(8) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations and decide in complete absence of both parties.
The Court further observed that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever informed about the hearing date.
Also, the Court noted that the Ombudsman inserted new paragraphs into the earlier order while dismissing the review.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The impugned order demonstrates that while dismissing the review petition it inserted certain portions in the earlier order… This also could not have been done… in the absence of the parties… insertions… can be done only after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.”
The Court reiterated that: “Regulation 37(8) provides that the Ombudsman… after affording an opportunity of being heard can review his orders… Thus, the provision envisages… the principle of audi alteram partem.”
The petitioner, Raj industries was issued demand notice of ₹34,50,000 for Infrastructure Development Charges. Aggrieved, the company first approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which partly allowed its claim thereafter it filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman directed Himachal Pradesh State Electricty Board Commission to supply a full break-up of the Infrastructure Development Charges calculation. However, still not satisfied, the petitioner sought review, which the Ombudsman dismissed without hearing the parties.
Thus, the High Court quashed the review order and remanded the matter back to ombudsman for fresh hearing.
Case Name: Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others
Case No.: CWP No.2902 of 2018
Date of Decision: 18.11.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meenakshi, Katoch, Advocate