IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1940 of 2011 alongwith C.W.P. Nos. 1938, 1976, 1977, 1978, 2068, 2077, 2078, 2079 and 2725 of 2011. Decided on: 30th November, 2011. _____________________________________________________ 1. USMS Saffron Company Inc. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 2. M/S Milano Bathroom Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 3. Safire International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 4. M/S Bagrrys India Limited. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 5. M/s Garg Electronics, (Unit-II). Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 6. M/s Khandelia Oil & General Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 7. Pooja Printer, Registered Partnership Firm Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 8. Prakash Label Private Limited Company. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 9. Jawala Vidyut Accessories Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. 10. Lotus Food Stuff, Registered Partnership Firm Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others. ……..Petitioners/Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s). : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate, for the H.P.S.E.B.. M/s. S.C. Sharama, Janesh Gupta and Dinesh Thakur, Advocates for HIMUDA. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. (in all the cases). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 2656 of 2009 and other connected maters for the redressal of their grievances. These petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.12. 2010. The operative portion of the judgment dated 2.12.2010 reads thus: “Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of as follows: (i) In case the petitioners are fed from the Sub Station set up as per the agreement dated 30th December, 2006, referred to above, the Electricity Board shall work out the pro-rata liability of the petitioners, taking into consideration also the other connections through the Sub Station either in the Industrial Estate or outside. (ii) There will be a direction to the first respondent to convene a meeting of the industrial consumers in the Estate and the second respondent, verify the factual position and take a decision jointly with the Electricity Board in the matter within a period of three months from today. The Electricity - 3 - Board-second respondent shall also made available the records pertaining to the factual position as to the supply effected from the Sub Station. (iii) Till action, as above is taken, the interim orders passed by this Court will continue.” 3. In sequel to the judgment rendered by this Court on 2.12.2010, respondent No.1 has taken a decision on 26.2.2011. Petitioners have assailed this order. 4. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners have not been associated while taking impugned decision Annexure P-20 dated 26.2.2011. He further argued that all the stake holders, i.e. petitioners and respondents were required to sit together and after deliberations amicable decision was to be taken. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-19 whereby one of the petitioners had prayed for postponing the meeting, which was convened on 3.2.2011. 5. I have gone through the impugned decision carefully. 6. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Vinay Kuthiala that the industrial consumer has not been associated in meaningful manner while taking a decision on 26.2.2011 strictly in conformity with the judgment. 7. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed. Annexure P-20 dated 26.2.2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to convene a fresh meeting on 19.12.2011. It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that in the meeting to be held on 19.12.2011, the petitioners - 4 - and similarly situate persons, who are not before this Court, H.P.S.E.B. and representatives from HIMUDA will participate and thereafter a final decision shall be taken. The parties shall be permitted to project their cases in the meeting. The Secretary of the meeting shall be nominated by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary of respondent No.1-Board. Respondent No.1 need not issue any separate notices to the petitioners. However, registered notices be sent to other industrial consumers of the meeting to be convened on 19.12.2011. The Secretary shall record the true minutes of the deliberations of the meeting to be held on 19.12.2011. It is also made clear that in case of any difficulty faced by the parties while implementing the orders it shall be open to them to approach this Court for clarification/modification. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. Copy Dasti on usual terms. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 30.11.2011. *awasthi*)