Jaisa Ram and Others vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners entrepreneurs, operating manufacturing units, have questioned legality of the demand notice issued by the Assistant Engineer (OandM), Jodhpur Discom, Jalore, towards the cost of transformer and transmission losses.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were released electricity connections in the year 2002. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the consumers were not required to install their own transformers and therefore, after a lapse of so many years, on the strength of an order dated 23.3.12, issued by the Chief Engineer (HQ), Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur, the demand raised is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the demand raised as aforesaid without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is violative of principles of natural justice as well.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petitions, submitted that the demand has been raised on the basis of audit report inasmuch as, while releasing the electricity connection in favour of the petitioners, the amount payable by them towards the cost of transformer and transmission losses, was not paid. It is submitted that as per Rule 8(2)(4) and 8(G)(18) of the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity, 2004, the petitioners are liable to pay the cost of line/transformer/sub station installed. That apart, it is submitted that as per commercial circular No. 170 dated 19.7.03 and circular No. 566 dated 23.3.12 also, the petitioners are liable to pay the cost of transformer and other allied charges. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, while releasing the electricity connection, the petitioners had given undertaking that they will abide by Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time by the respondent-Jodhpur Discom. Learned counsel would submit that as per Clause 52 of ''Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity-2004'' laid down by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission in pursuance of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Connected Matters) Regulations-2004 issued in exercise of power conferred under Sections 43 to 48, 50, 55 and 56 of Electricity Act, 2003, any dispute relating to charges payable by a consumer except assessment under Clause 48(B) or (C) i.e. the matter with regard to unauthorised use and other offences of electricity and compounding of an offence, may be referred by the consumer to the appropriate Consumer''s Dues Settlement Committee and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

A bare perusal of the impugned notices goes to show that the demand is created against the petitioner by the respondent-Jodhpur Discom towards the cost of transformer and transmission losses. Indisputably, as per Clause 52 of the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity-2004, any dispute relating to the charges payable by the consumer except under Clause 48(B) or (C) may be referred by the consumer to appropriate Consumer''s Dues Settlement Committee constituted for the purpose, which in its turn is required to pass an appropriate order within the stipulated period. In the considered opinion of this court, the present matters do not suggest any special feature so as to permit the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by passing the remedy available to them under Clause 52 of the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity-2004.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be relegated to the remedy of raising the dispute before the Settlement Committee in terms of Clause 52 of Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity-2004, but then, till the dispute is adjudicated upon by the Settlement Committee, the interim order passed by this court restraining the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioners for recovery of the impugned demand may be continued.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where the demand has been raised against the petitioners by the respondent-Jodhpur Discom after lapse of so many years since release of electricity connection, this court is of the opinion that the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners as aforesaid, deserves acceptance.

In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms that the petitioners may avail the remedy of reference of the dispute to the appropriate Settlement Committee within a period of one month from the date of this order. The Settlement Committee shall pass the appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and due consideration of the submissions to be made on their behalf, within a period of three months thereafter. Pending adjudication of the dispute to be raised by the petitioners, the electricity supply of the petitioners shall not be disconnected on account of failure on the part of the petitioners in discharging the demand created towards cost of transformer and charges for transmission losses, vide impugned demand notices. No order as to costs.