THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1559 of 2009. Air Liquide North India Private Limited. … Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and others. …Respondents. Mr. Arvind Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. L.P.Naithani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. WITH Writ Petition (M/S) No. 286 of 2010. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division, Roorkee (Rural) District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. Electricity Ombudsman and another. …Respondents. Mr. L.P.Naithani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Date August 31, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar and the impugned order in these petitions is the same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1559 of 2009, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 2 A. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing that portion of the order of the Ombudsman that relegates the matter of imposition of penalty on the petitioner to Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (for short UPCL) to take a fresh decision in the matter. B. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned notices issued to the petitioner after the passing of the order of the Ombudsman. C. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding UPCL to forthwith refund the penalty amount deposited with them along with interest to the petitioner. D. Issue any other appropriate writ order(s)/direction(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and E. Award the costs of the writ petition. In W.P.M.S. No. 286 of 2010 the petitioner-UPCL has sought the following relief:- (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-5-2009 passed by the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (b) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) to award cost throughout to the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 11-5-2009, the learned Ombudsman has set aside the order of the UPCL imposing the cash penalty of Rs. 2.60 Crores on the petitioner-Air Liquide North India Private Limited on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before imposing penalty and liberty was given to UPCL to consider this matter afresh after giving the petitioner proper opportunity of being heard and after taking into account and evaluating all factual and legal issues relevant to this case. Keeping in mind the manner in which this matter has been dealt with in the post, fresh consideration of this case shall be done by an officer not below 3 the rank of a full time Director of UPCL. Fresh penalty may be imposed on the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner has knowingly and deliberately violated the relating restrictions on usage of electricity by industrial consumers. In such an event, the petitioner will also be free to seek due relief from the Forum and if necessary from that office. In both the petitions, contesting respondent has filed counter affidavit thereby refuting the contention of the rival party. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Ombudsman. This fact is not disputed that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-Air Liquide North India Private Limited before passing the order imposing cash penalty on the petitioner. I find no manifest error of law in the order passed by the Ombudsman therein observing that fresh penalty may be imposed on the petitioner- Air Liquide North India Private Limited after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the manner that, as has been directed by the learned Ombudsman in the operative portion of the impugned order, the UPCL shall take a decision afresh in the matter, after proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Air Liquide North India Private Limited and that fresh order in the matter shall be passed by an Officer not below the rank of a full time Director, within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. It is also provided that if the Director of the UPCL comes to the conclusion that there is no fault of the petitioner, the amount of cash penalty of Rs. 2.60 crores, which was deposited by the petitioner- Air Liquide North India Private Limited with the respondent-UPCL shall be adjusted in the next bill and in case the Director of the UPCL comes to the conclusion that the petitioner-Air Liquide North India Private Limited has violated the restrictions on usage of electricity and the order so passed is against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at 4 liberty to assail the same. Likewise if the order passed by the Director is against the UPCL-respondent, the respondent would also be at liberty to challenge that order. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP