IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Review No.42 of 2008 alongwith Civil Review Nos.43 & 44 of 2008. Date of decision: 07.08.2008. H.P.S.E.B. and others (in all cases) ....Petitioners -Versus- 1.M/s.Winsome Textiles in C.Review No.42/08 2.M/s.Winsome Spectrum in C.Review No.43/08 3.M/s.Winsome Spinner’s in C.Review No.44/08 ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate For Respondents: Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) These three Review Petitions are being disposed of by a single order since they arise out of the same judgment passed in three writ petitions. Originally the respondents had filed CWP Nos.496, 499 & 500 of 2002 before this Court praying for certain reliefs. When these petitions came up for hearing before us, both the parties stated that the said petitions be disposed of in terms of the orders passed by the H.P. State Regulatory Commission in various similar matters. We had accordingly disposed of the three petitions in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and had quoted the 2 relevant portion of the order of the Regulatory Commission. Thereafter, the respondents filed fresh petitions being CWP Nos.1101, 1102 & 1335 of 2007. In these petitions the grievance of the respondents was that the respondent Board should correct the bills w.e.f. Ist November, 2001. Defence of the Board was that fresh agreements with regard to the contract demand were only entered into between the parties on 12th March, 2004 and therefore the benefit to the consumer could be given only from the said date. We rejected the contention of the Board and held that in view of the condition No.(vi) of the order of the Regulatory Commissioner as well as the letter dated 4th March, 2003 and also in view of the fact that right from December, 2001 the consumer Company had been requesting the Board to enter into fresh agreements, the Board could not deny the benefit of the fresh agreement w.e.f. Ist November, 2001. The challenge in the Review petitions is that since the consumer previously also had a contract demand their case is covered under Clause (i) of the order of the Regulatory Commissioner. It has further been averred that the letter dated 4th March, 2003 was quashed by the Regulatory Commissioner vide its order dated 31stOctober, 2003. As far as the first contention is concerned we are not in agreement with the same. No doubt clause (i) of the order states that in those cases where the agreement form has been based upon the connected load only and does not indicate contract demand the 3 Board shall give an opportunity within one month of the issue of the order to all consumers to enter fresh agreement but clause (vi) provides that the benefit of the order should be given from November 1, 2001. We see no reason why the same benefit should not be granted to those consumers who had already entered into agreement, raised a contract demand and wanted to change the contract demand as per notification dated Ist November, 2001. The respondents have repeatedly been requesting that their contract demand be changed. This demand was never considered by the Board. Therefore, the respondent had approached this Court. In view of the above discussion, we find no error apparent on the face of the record. Review Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 7, 2008. ( Surinder Singh ), PV Judge