Legal Views

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 notably, the  GoHP has withdrawn the subsidy which was agreed  to be paid in the tariff i.e. ARR of the HP DISCOM, keeping in view the financial health of the state of economy of the HP,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

  In a very landmark  judgment of the High  Court of Himachal Pradesh, the encroachers  on the government land and forest land have  been ordered to vacate the land and the improvements if any made over the land  such as houses etc shall become the property of the department of the government and same shall be utilised for its use.  the  Division Bench  comprised of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipen Chander Negi delivered this judgment on 31-07-2024  in Civil Writ  Petition 1093   of 2016 titled as Chatter Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh. the Court directed to the government authorities to take immediate steps for the removal of the encroachments in the state of Himachal  Pradesh and file the compliance affidavit. 

 Apex Court Decision on Jurisdiction of High Court  against the appellate/revisional  order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission: critical analysis  In M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Suresh Chander Jain and anr Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023, (2023 INSC 649) decided on July 26, 2023, the Supreme Court categorically held that   the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in its appellate and revisional jurisdiction are liable to be challenged before the Jurisdictional  High Court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. the appeal to the Supreme Court would lie only against the original jurisdiction.  the court expresses view as under:      " 38. in the aforesaid view of the matter, we have reached to the conclusion that we should not adjudicate this petition on merits. we must ask the petition herein to first go before the jurisdictional ...

 The  High Court of HP in Civil Writ Petition No. 3704 of 2012 titled as HP State Electricity Board Limited and another versus M/S Claridge Moulded Fibre Limited  held that  the quasi judicial authorities while passing an order has to pass a well reasoned and speaking order by touching all the contentions of the parties.    The High Court was  hearing a writ petition filed by the HP State Electricity Board Limited  against the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) constituted under section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The Forum while passing the order did not render its findings on the points raised by the parties and thus HPSEBL feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the order, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.      The High Court after hearing the parties, observed that Forum which has been constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 is required to pass...