Legal Views

 The High Court of HP  has ordered disconnection of the electricity supply of the person who obstructs in laying electricity service line  on his land.  Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held as under:     "It is duty of distribution licensee to provide connection to every eligible applicant by taking necessary      steps for which  respondents are empowered. in present case  finding petitioner entitled for connection,      a demand notice has been issued and in sequel thereto, petitioner had deposited the amount in July, 2019, but it appears that influenced by extraneous considerations, electricity connection to  the petitioner has not been provided. otherwise also, a person enjoying benefit of electricity connection   from a line laid on  government or private land belonging to others, cannot be permitted to create hinderance to the electricity connection, to be provided to his neighbour, by raising objectio...

                                In a recent landmark decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.                     10931 of   2023 titled as Sh. Rajender  Kumar Sen and others  versus State of           Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 30th July 2025, the court has  passed directions to lay down sewage line and provided sewage connections to the petitioner even if the land involved is  of private land. court observed that  it is duty of the municipal council to provide sewage connection  and there is no need to take prior consent of the private land owner.  however,  the court made it clear that while laying down said sewage line it be ensured that minimum damage is caused to the property of the private respondents and the beed of the fiel...

T he High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of  CWP  No 2791 of 2020 titled as Roshan Lal versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others imposed cost Rs 25,000/-  for supplying electricity in the disputed premises  by affixing a meter in the name of the private respondent, despite the   undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed a civil suit which is pending adjudication before the trial court and operation of stay order of the trial court is continued.  the Hon'ble Court directed to recover the cost from the officer who was at the helm of the affairs at that relevant point of time, when the electricity meter was installed in the disputed premises  https://highcourt.hp.gov.in/viewojpdf/view.php?path=2020&nc=&fname=200100027912020_8.pdf&smflag=N

The High Court of HP in Kundlas Loh Udyog  and others versus Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited and another CWP No 12178 of 2024 a/w connected matters rejected the pleas of the  petitioners mainly industries were that when the government of HP had agreed  to provide subsidy to the consumer under section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the HP Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) while issuing the  tariff order for Financial Year 2024-25, the government cannot take u turn and withdraw the subsidy  in the mid of the year. notably, the  GoHP has withdrawn the subsidy which was agreed  to be paid in the tariff i.e. ARR of the HP DISCOM, keeping in view the financial health of the state of economy of the HP, resultantly the tariff  of the  industrial consumers was increased by  Rs 1/per Unit of energy.  initially the court gave interim reliefs to the petitioners and stayed the operation of the order of the withdr...

    The law has already been settled by the Supreme Court in catena of its decision,  one of which is UP Power Corporation Ltd  and others  versus Anis Ahmed  Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2011 decided on July 1, 2013 .  (para no 24), wherein the  court has held that the services purely for the commercial purpose are not under the ambit and scope  of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia with Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 The High Court of HP in Rishi Raj versus state of HP and other CWP No 1128 of 2017 decided on 01-08-2024 has categorically held that forest land cannot be put to use of the non-forest purpose, as has been defined and explained in section 2of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.  further it was held that the forest land or portion  thereof for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oils bearing plants, horticulture crops or medical plants and even any purpose other than reafforestation, shall amount to  using such land for non-forest purpose. the  court directed the revenue authorities to identify the the government/forest land by fixing permanent  boundary marks of the such land  and to remove the other encroachments.  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/himachal-pradesh-high-court-affirms-eviction-from-forest-land-554589.pdf