Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited @APPELLANT@Hash Raj Electricity Regulatory Commission

Counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is covered by a judgment passed by Coordinate

Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13696/2010      (Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran           Nigam Limited

Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. & connected petition No.13110/2009), decided on 6th October,2012, wherein it has been

held as under :-

“These two writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Appellate Tribunal for Electricity,

New Delhi. The orders that are impugned are 7/10/2010 in SBCWP No.13696/2010 and 24/7/2009 in SBCWP No.13110/2009. Counsel for petitioner

has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. to argue that even in the

face of remedy of appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act before the Supreme Court, the writ of certiorari can directly be entertained by this

court if it is shown that the impugned-orders passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal suffer from lack

of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has submitted that there was difference of opinion even between the members of the appellate Tribunal on vital

aspects, therefore the matter was referred to the third member, who agreed with one of the members. Therefore, also these writ petitions deserve to

be entertained.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions and argued that further appeal against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for

Electricity lies to the Supreme Court under Section 125. And even that appeal would lie only if any substantial question of law is involved in the matter

as per parameters specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the facts of the case, plea of the petitioner that present writ petitions before this Court would be maintainable as in its perception the impugned-

orders suffer from lack of jurisdiction, cannot be accepted because when appeal against the impugned-orders lies to Supreme Court, it is only the

Supreme Court, which shall examine whether or not substantial question of law is involved in the matter or even the question of alleged lack of

jurisdiction for that matter. This court cannot substitute itself for that of the Supreme Court deliberately provided as the ultimate appellate forum by the

parliament, which is indicative of the finality given to the orders of the first appellate forum thereby, not making them not amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of the High Courts.

These writ petitions are therefore dismissed being not maintainable.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the similar circumstances.

In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions stand dismissed being not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the matter of AVVNL (supra). Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.