CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

105 (I) CWP-22508-2023

Reserved on: April 30, 2025

Pronounced on: July 29, 2025

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(II) CWP-23121-2023

HISAR METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(III) CWP-24998-2023

DCM TEXTILE (A UNIT OF DCM NOUVELLE LTD.)

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(IV) CWP-25969-2023

M/S BSL CASTING PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(V) CWP-25981-2023

M/S PUNJAB GENERAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 2

(VI) CWP-26484-2023

M/S HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(VII) CWP-26596-2023

M/S ASAHI INDIA GLASS LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(VIII) CWP-26820-2023

M/S MAHAVIR DIE CASTERS PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(IX) CWP-26833-2023

M/S OSWAL GLOBAL PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(X) CWP-27625-2023

M/S RICO AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XI) CWP-27855-2023

M/S JBM AUTO LIMITED

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 3

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XII) CWP-27875-2023

M/S NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XIII) CWP-27950-2023

M/S JBM INDUSTRIES LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XIV) CWP-27964-2023

M/S POOJA FORGE LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XV) CWP-27965-2023

M/S POOJA FORGE LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XVI) CWP-27968-2023

M/S UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 4

(XVII) CWP-28238-2023

M/S NEW ALLENBERY WORKS

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XVIII) CWP-26691-2023

M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XIX) CWP-26708-2023

SOMANY CERAMICS LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XX) CWP-26732-2023

M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXI) CWP-152-2024

M/S JAI BHARAT MARUTI LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXII) CWP-155-2024

M/S JAI BHARAT MARUTI LIMITED

-PETITIONER

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 5

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXIII) CWP-212-2024

M/S MUNJAL KIRIU INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXIV) CWP-29043-2023

M/S SADHU FORGING LIMITED

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXV) CWP-2984-2024

M/S ESCORTS KUBOTA LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

(XXVI) CWP-3048-2024

M/S ESCORTS KUBOTA LTD.

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate

Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate

Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate

Ms. Nitika Singla, Advocate

Ms. Neha Anand Mahajan, Advocate

Ms. Sheenam Banchta, Advocate and

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 6

Mr. Drupad Sangwan, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos.22508, 23121 and 24998

of 2023).

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with

Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate and

Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos.25969, 25981, 26484,

26596, 26820, 26833, 27625, 27855, 27875, 27950, 27964,

27965, 27968, 28238, 26691, 26708, 26732 and 29043 of

2023 and CWP Nos.152, 155, 212 of 2024).

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate

for the respondent(s) – DHBVNL, HVPNL and UHBVNL

(in CWP Nos. 27855, 26596, 27625, 27964, 26732, 27950,

28238, 27965, 26833, 26820, 25981, 25969, 27875, 26596,

26708, 27968, 26484, 23121, 22508, 26691, 29043 of 2023

and CWP Nos. 152, 155, 212 of 2024).

Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate

for the respondent No.2 (in CWP-22508-2023).

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate with

Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates, for respondent(s)-HERC.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. All these writ petitions are amenable for being decided through

a common verdict, on account of theirs enveloping common question(s) of

law and common grievance(s).

2. To be precise, the petitioners are basically aggrieved by

demand notice(s) served by the distribution licensee. The genesis of such

demand notice(s) can be traced to various orders drawn by the Haryana

Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the

“H.E.R.C.”) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Tribunal’). For the sake of

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 7

brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-22508-

2023.

3. The challenge enclosed in this writ petition is to the order

dated 22.10.2019, corrigendum dated 20.11.2019 and the order dated

13.09.2021, whereby, the respondent No.2-H.E.R.C. has allowed the four

review petitions filed by the distribution licensee. Moreover, challenge is

also thrown to the notice dated 11.09.2023, whereby, recovery of ₹

21,74,98,969/- is sought to be effected for the financial years 2016-2017

to 2019-2020.

4. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a large industrial consumer

of electricity in the State of Haryana with a sanctioned contract demand of

130 MVA and a sanctioned connected load of 125 MW. The petitioner

purchases electricity sourced through the open access system, wherein

electricity generated outside the State of Haryana is purchased, and this is

termed “Interstate Collective Transaction”. The distribution licensee filed

a True-up petition for the financial year 2014-2015, annual performance

review for the financial year 2015-16, and transmission tariff and SLDC

charges for the financial year 2016-17. A public notice was duly served,

and thereupon, vide order dated 31.03.2016, the H.E.R.C. fixed the Short

Term Open Access charges (hereinafter referred to as ‘STOA charges’) @

₹ 0.33/kWh for the financial year 2015-2016. Subsequently, the

distribution licensee filed a review petition seeking a revision of the

STOA charges to ₹ 0.43/kWh for the financial year 2015-2016, instead of

₹ 0.33/kWh. However, this review petition was rejected vide order dated

08.11.2016, which caused grievance to the distribution licensee and

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 8

triggered it to institute an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The

Appellate Tribunal, through its drawing the order dated 28.08.2019,

remanded the matter to the H.E.R.C. for decision afresh. Accordingly, the

H.E.R.C., vide order dated 22.10.2019, redetermined the STOA charges

@ ₹ 0.43/kWh for the financial year 2015-2016. Subsequently, a

corrigendum was issued on 20.11.2019, clarifying that, owing to an

inadvertent error, the redetermined STOA charges were noted as being for

the financial year 2015-2016, whereas they were actually for the financial

year 2016-2017.

5. It is apposite to note that, in the meanwhile, the distribution

licensee preferred subsequent true-up petitions, whereupon, the STOA

charges for the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020

were fixed respectively as ₹ 0.36/kWh, ₹ 0.36/kWh and ₹ 0.27/kWh. The

distribution licence preferred three review petitions seeking re-

determination of the STOA charges fixed for the financial years (supra).

These review petitions were allowed vide a common order dated

13.09.2021 and the STOA charges were enhanced.

6. It is also apposite to record that, pending adjudication of the

above review petitions, the distribution licensee served upon the petitioner

a recovery notice dated 26.07.2021 and raised demand of ₹ 6,49,53,420/-.

Subsequently, the distribution licensee served upon the petitioner the

impugned notice dated 11.09.2023, thereby making intimation that a sum

of ₹ 21,74,98,969/- is charged as per direction by AO/CBO, for SE/CBO

DHBVN, Hisar, vide memo No.212/16/SE/CBO/OA dated 08.09.2023.

7. The orders dated 22.10.2019 and 13.09.2021, along with the

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 9

demand notice dated 11.09.2023, caused pain to the petitioner and

propelled it to challenge them by instituting this writ petition.

8. The principal submission made by the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner is that, the impugned orders drawn by the H.E.R.C. are

totally against the Conduct of Business Regulations, as framed in exercise

of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 92 read with

Section 181(2)(zl) of the Electricity Act, 2003, sub-section (2) of Section

9, Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 54 of the Haryana

Electricity Reform Act, 1997.

9. The learned senior counsel for the distribution licensee has

been opposing this writ petition primarily on the ground of

maintainability, specifically in view of Section 111 of the Electricity Act,

inasmuch as this Section clearly prescribes the statutory remedy of appeal

against the impugned orders.

10. Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 21.04.2025, had

directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to first address arguments

on the issue of maintainability. The relevant portion of the order dated

21.04.2025 is reproduced hereunder:-

“The preliminary argument raised by the learned counsel

for the distribution licencee is with regard to the maintainability

of the instant petition(s), as the order, which is impugned before

this Court, is appealable.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) in CWP

Nos.22508, 23121 and 24998 of 2023, seeks an adjournment to

address the arguments on this issue.

The asked for request is accepted.

Purely in the interest of justice, the case is adjourned to

30.04.2025, for arguments.

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 10

To be shown in the urgent list.

Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.”

11. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

would submit that, at the time when the H.E.R.C. passed the order(s)

under review, no notice was served upon the petitioner. Moreover, even

when the subsequent three review petitions were filed, which were finally

disposed of through a common order dated 13.09.2021, the petitioner was

not put to notice. Therefore, the impugned orders have been passed in

gross violation of the principles of natural justice, hence the same can be

assailed by directly filing writ petition before this Court.

12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits

that, in fact, the order(s) passed in review petitions is beyond the

jurisdiction of the H.E.R.C. Therefore also, the petitioner has a remedy to

assail such patently illegal order(s) by filing writ petition before this

Court.

13. Proceeding further, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the verdicts rendered in

“Asit Kumar Kar V. State of West Bengal & Ors.”, (2009) 2 SCC 703,

and, “Godrej Sara Lee V. Excise and Taxation Officer cum Assessing

Authority & Ors.”, (2023) 109 GSTR 402, and submits that merely

because an alternative remedy is available, this writ petition cannot be

dismissed solely on that ground. In this writ petition, the impugned orders

have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice,

hence they are amenable to being assailed through this writ petition.

14. The submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 11

the petitioner have been vociferously opposed by the learned senior

counsel for the distribution licensee, not only on legal aspects, but also on

factual aspects. He submits that, the impugned orders have been passed by

the H.E.R.C. under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore,

if anyone is aggrieved by the said orders, he may file an appeal before the

Appellate Tribunal as per Part XI of the Electricity Act, 2003. Without

availing the statutory remedy of appeal, the petitioner has straightaway

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is not sustainable.

15. Elaborating his submissions, he further submits that, on the

limited point of change of methodology for calculating STOA charges,

review petition was filed by the distribution licensee, which was rejected

by the H.E.R.C. vide order dated 08.11.2016. Resultantly, an appeal was

filed before the Appellate Tribunal, which was decided on 28.08.2019

with the observations that the action, i.e. methodology of H.E.R.C., is

faulty. Therefore, directions were given to H.E.R.C. to re-determine the

STOA charges in accordance with the apposite Regulations.

16. The learned senior counsel for the distribution licensee

submits that, the filing of appeal and its decision were all conducted in

public hearing and all the orders of the Appellate Tribunal are available

on its official website for every person, because the very nature of the

tariff order is ‘judgment in rem’ and not ‘judgment in persona’. In these

circumstances, the H.E.R.C. was bound to correct the mistake of adopting

a wrong methodology not only for the financial year 2016-2017, but also

for the subsequent financial years 2017-2018 and 2019-2020.

17. While joining the issue of infraction of the principles of

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 12

natural justice, as raised by the petitioner’s counsel, the learned senior

counsel for the distribution licensee submits that, a detailed public notice

under Section 64(2) of the Electricity Act was issued, however, no

objection thereto was submitted by any petitioner. Therefore, the

petitioner does not have any locus to state that individual consumer

should have been given notice of these proceedings. Moreover, despite

even remand too, the petitioner did not again raise any objection before

the H.E.R.C.

18. Although the respondent(s) did join issue on merits, this

Court is not inclined to record those submissions, as this Court is

considering only the preliminary issue with regard to maintainability.

19. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the parties and has also made a studied survey of the

record. There is no wrangle that, the availability of an alternative remedy

by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. However, such powers cannot be exercised as a

routine practice. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments. In a recent judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s Radha Krishan Industries V. State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors.”, 2021(4) PLR 738, the basic principles

regarding the maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court, in

cases where a statutory remedy is available, have been set down. The

relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“27. The principles of law which emerge are that :

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs

can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 13

rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a

writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of

the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is

available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a

fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural

justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without

jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High

Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in

an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition

should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate

remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself

prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right

or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory

remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under

Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of

statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and

discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the

High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ

petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the

view that the nature of the controversy requires the

exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not

readily be interfered with.

28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court

in Seth Chand Ratan v Pandit Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399,

Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2

SCC 706 and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632

among other decisions.”

20. In “Punjab National Bank V. O.C.Krishnan”, (2001) 6 SCC

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 14

569, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question whether a

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an

order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and

observed as under:-

"6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special

procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial

institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act,

namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track

procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking

recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred.

Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the

jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy

available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from

exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions.

This was a case where the High Court should not have

entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and

should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the

appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”

21. In “U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. V. R.S. Pandey and Anr.”

2005(4) S.C.T. 430, the Supreme Court held that, if somebody

approached the High Court without availing the alternative remedy

provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case

or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

The relevant observations are extracted hereinafter:-

“11. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the

Constitution (42

nd

Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to

alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self

imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience

and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an

alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 15

High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter

relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the

jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not

interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If

somebody approached the High Court without availing the

alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he

has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to

invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.”

22. On the anvil of the above legal propositions, this Court has

examined the issue of maintainability of these writ petitions, and is of the

view that, the issue of infraction of the principles of natural justice, in the

present cases, is itself a disputed questions of fact, especially when a

public notice under Section 64(2) of the Electricity Act was issued, and

the entire proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal were also conducted

in public hearing. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the

non issuance of notice to each and every consumer. Moreover, there are

specific provisions with regard to conducting of public proceedings and

public hearing. Reference in this regard can be made to Para 2.1.1 and 2.2

of the order drawn by the H.E.R.C. on 31.03.2016 and the same is

extracted hereinafter:-

“

2.1.1 Public Proceedings

In accordance with the provisions of Section 64 (2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 HVPNL published its petition in abridged

form to invite comments / objections from the stakeholders /

general public. The Public Notice was issued by the HVPNL in

The Tribune (English) dated 29.11.2015 and Dainik Tribune

(Hindi) dated 28.11.2015 inviting objections/ suggestions/

comments from the stakeholders and general public. Additionally,

the Commission also issued Public Notice in the Hindustan Times

(English) and Dainik Jagran (Hindi) on 12.1.2016 inviting

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 16

comments / objections from the stakeholders/general public.

However, in response to the Public Notice(s) inviting

objections/comments on the Petition filed by the HVPNL no

objections/ comments were filed by any party including the

Distribution Licensees in Haryana.

2.2 PUBLIC HEARING

The Commission proceeded to hold public hearing on the

petition filed by HVPNL after intimating the date of public

hearing in the newspapers. The date of public hearing was also

posted on the website of the Commission under the heading

'Schedule of Hearing'.

The public hearing was held on 15.2.2016 in the

Conference Hall of the Commission. The Petitioner made a

presentation in the hearing and also responded to the queries of

the Commission.”

23. In view of the disputed questions of fact, this Court refrains

from deciding the issue “whether the impugned order(s) were passed

without complying with the principles of natural justice”, leaving it for the

Appellate Tribunal to examine the same on the basis of the available

record.

24. Insofar as the submission of the learned senior counsel for

the petitioner is concerned, that a substantial demand has been raised

through the impugned notice, which would have significant financial

repercussions and adversely affect the petitioner’s fiscal health, and

therefore the petitioner has rightly instituted the present writ petition

instead of availing the statutory remedy, this Court is of the considered

view that such a submission cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue. The

issue regarding STOA charges can very well be examined by the

Appellate Tribunal, which is, in fact, the expert body in such matters.

25. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that,

CWP-22508-2023 and connected cases 17

these writ petitions are not maintainable and the same are accordingly

dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise all such

pleas and claims, as raised before this Court, including the plea of

violation of the principles of natural justice (if any), before the Appellate

Tribunal by availing the statutory remedy.

26. Before parting, it is important to observe that if the

petitioners, within 30 days from today, file the statutory appeal(s) along

with application(s) for condonation of delay before the Appellate

Tribunal, the latter shall consider the delay application sympathetically,

especially considering the fact that the petitioners had bonafidely been

agitating their claim by filing a misconceived motion before this Court.

27. Moreover, the interim relief granted by this Court shall

remain in force only for the next 30 days or until the interim prayer is

decided by the Appellate Tribunal, whichever is earlier.

28. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of e ach

connected case.

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

July 29, 2025 JUDGE

devinder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No