The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away by statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Though an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed, office report shows that the appeal is within limitation.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. This appeal arises out of order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14766/2019 by which the petition filed by the appellant seeking to assail the correctness and validity of an award dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ’the Electricity Ombudsman’) has been dismissed.

4. For the purposes of adjudication of the controversy involved in the present appeal, we may usefully refer to brief factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present appeal.

5. Respondent No.2, who is a consumer of electricity, had a dispute with the appellant which is a government company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The dispute mainly related with regard to the energy bills, which were generated in respect of the period from 29.06.2016 to 18.05.2018. The facts of the case as are floating on the surface show that during the period in question, the metering equipment is said to have remained inaccurate due to error in CVTs. The consumer raised a grievance that the energy bills, which have been generated through the defective meter are not proper, which was not acceptable to the appellant company. This gave rise to a dispute between the parties. The consumer approached the Corporate Level Grievance Redressal Settlement Forum (hereinafter referred to as ’the Settlement Forum) under the provisions of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 2003’) read with Rule 15 of the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 framed under the Act of 2003, which culminated in award of Rs.41,34,667/- required to be adjusted for the period from 07.10.2017 to 06.04.2018. However, dissatisfied with the decision of the Settlement Forum, the consumer filed the representation before the Electricity Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance and for refund of excess amount of entire period starting from 29.06.2016 to 18.05.2018 i.e. from the date of connection till the date of replacement of CVTs.

6. The dispute between the parties could not be settled amicably and, therefore, the Electricity Ombudsman proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute and passed an award on 16.05.2019 in favour of the respondent/consumer. It was held that the consumer will be entitled to adjustment on account of inaccuracy in the meter since the date of connection in terms of Para-2, Clause 33 (5) of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, 2004 and limit of six months restricted by the Settlement Forum was held to be erroneous and, therefore, the Electricity Ombudsman passed an order of revision of bills.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, as there is no statutory remedy available, the appellant-supplier company filed writ petition before this Court.

8. The contentions of the parties were examined by the learned Single Judge on merits as well on the very maintainability of the writ petition in view of the objections taken by the consumer before the learned Single Judge that the remedy of filing writ petition could not be availed by the supplier company.

9. After examining the case on merits, while learned Single Judge held that the award granting relief to the consumer could not be interfered with in view of specific material on record that meter was inaccurate since the date of connection till the date of replacement, learned Single Judge also held that even the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the appellant was not maintainable in law.

10. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge before us.

11. Two principal contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are that, firstly the learned Single Judge has incorrectly held that the writ petition under