Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Ombudsman’s Review Order, Upholds Principles of Natural Justice

Court Remands Case Back to Ombudsman for Fresh Hearing After Violations in Review Process

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a review order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman due to a violation of natural justice principles. The case, Raj Industries v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, centered around the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss a review petition without providing the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner, Raj Industries, had approached the High Court challenging the review order dated August 8, 2018, issued by the Electricity Ombudsman. The company contended that the Ombudsman failed to adhere to Regulation 37(8) of the HPERC Consumers Grievances Redressal Regulation, which mandates that both parties must be given a chance to present their case before a review decision is made.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, presiding over the case, highlighted the importance of the audi alteram partem principle, which ensures that no party is condemned unheard. The court observed that the Ombudsman’s decision to insert additional portions into the original order during the review process, without affording a hearing to the parties, was unsustainable and violated the principles of natural justice.

The court further noted that the Ombudsman’s power to review orders, as per Regulation 37(8), should be exercised with due consideration of providing both parties an opportunity to be heard. The court criticized the Ombudsman for making insertions in the absence of the parties, stating that such actions were beyond the intended scope of the regulation.

As a result, the High Court has remanded the matter back to the Electricity Ombudsman, directing a fresh review of the petition with proper adherence to procedural fairness and allowing both parties to present their arguments.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice, ensuring that decision-making bodies like the Electricity Ombudsman conduct reviews in a manner that respects the rights of all parties involved.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Rahul Mahajan, expressed satisfaction with the judgment, emphasizing that it reinforces the necessity of fair hearing processes. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Sunita Sharma, were directed to comply with the court’s instructions for a re-evaluation of the case.

Bottom Line:

Ombudsman must afford an opportunity of being heard to both parties before deciding a review petition as per Regulation 37(8) of the HPERC Consumers Grievances Redressal (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation.

Statutory provision(s): Regulation 37(8) of the HPERC Consumers Grievances Redressal (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation

Raj Industries v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2817976