In a brief but eventful hearing at the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel set aside a review order passed by the state’s Electricity Ombudsman, observing that the authority acted in “complete disregard of basic fairness.” The case, which began with a disputed demand of ₹34.5 lakh in Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC), saw fresh twists after the Ombudsman decided the review petition without hearing either side, a lapse the Court refused to overlook Raj Industries.
Background
Raj Industries, an industrial unit based in Nalagarh, had challenged a series of demand notices issued by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEBL). The company first approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), where its complaint was only partly allowed. Unsatisfied, it moved the Electricity Ombudsman, which in June 2018 directed HPSEBL to provide a detailed break-up of the IDC calculation, including the basis for arriving at the rate of ₹2,875 per KVA.
Things got more complicated when the Ombudsman, while dismissing Raj Industries’ review petition, added new portions to its earlier order, citing “inadvertent omission.” This insertion, done behind closed doors and without notice to the parties, prompted the company to seek relief before the High Court Raj Industries.
Court’s Observations
Justice Goel did not mince words. The bench observed, “The Ombudsman was duty bound to afford an opportunity of being heard… deciding the review in the absence of the applicant is neither the letter nor the spirit of Regulation 37(8).”
Regulation 37(8) of the HPERC framework clearly states that a review-whether initiated by the Ombudsman or requested by a party-must follow the principle of audi alteram partem, meaning both sides must be heard.
However, the review order on record showed a blank attendance-neither the petitioner nor the Board’s representatives were present. Crucially, the order also did not indicate that parties had been informed of the hearing date.
Raj Industries’ counsel argued that the Ombudsman had exceeded its jurisdiction by “rewriting its earlier order” under the guise of correcting omissions. The Court agreed, noting that even if an authority wishes to correct its own mistake, “insertions, if any, can be done only after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.”
HPSEBL attempted to argue that the petitioner had simply failed to appear, but the Court dismissed this as unsupported by the case record.
Decision
Finding the procedural defects too serious to ignore, the High Court quashed the Ombudsman’s review order dated 08.08.2018 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Justice Goel directed that the review petition must be decided only after hearing both parties, ensuring compliance with Regulation 37(8). With these directions, the petition was disposed of, and all pending applications closed Raj Industries.
Case Title: Raj Industries vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Others
Case No.: CWP No. 2902 of 2018
Case Type: Civil Writ Petition (Challenge to IDC Demand & Ombudsman Review Order)
Decision Date: 18 November 2025
