Himachal Pradesh HC issues contempt warning to Power department over delay in issuing notification
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Aug 4,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a serious view of the non-compliance with its earlier judgment, warning the Special Secretary (Power), Government of Himachal Pradesh, of contempt proceedings if the mandated notification is not issued within a week.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, hearing the contempt petition filed by M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog, noted that the Special Secretary had failed to comply with the Division Bench’s clear directions issued over three months ago. The Court had ordered the department to issue a notification granting an industrial incentive under Clause 16(A) of the Industrial Policy, 2019, from the date of commercial production.
Observing that the Power Department was attempting to “overreach the judgment,” the Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Shrawan Dogra, who argued that the respondent had shifted their stance in violation of the Court’s mandate.
“This Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Shrawan Dogra… that an attempt has been made by the respondent to overreach the judgment passed by this Court,” Justice Sharma noted in the order.
The respondent’s recent claim that a retrospective tariff revision by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) was required – and thus outside the Department’s purview – was firmly rejected by the Court. It was highlighted that such a position was never taken earlier and contradicted the State’s own earlier admission that the required notification would be issued.
“Now by way of filing reply to the instant petition, altogether different stand has been taken,” the judge noted, adding that this inconsistency raised prima facie grounds for contempt.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs. State of Kerala (2016) 6 SCC 766, the Court reiterated that the enabling notification was a mere ministerial act, and the petitioner’s entitlement flowed directly from the policy.
“Notification would be deemed to have been issued,” the Court held, rejecting the State’s current arguments as untenable.
Allowing a final opportunity on the “vehement request” of the Additional Advocate General, the Court granted one week’s time to comply. “Failing which he shall remain present in Court to explain why he be not punished for his having intentionally and willfully disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment,” Justice Sharma warned.
The matter is now listed for hearing on August 6, 2025.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
