Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Electricity Ombudsman – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) The High Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite the absence of a statutory remedy for the supplier, citing L. Chandra Kumar as to the basic structure of constitutional jurisdiction. [17000658810026] - (!) The Supreme Court/this judgment explains that despite no statutory remedy, constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 cannot be taken away, and writ petitions can challenge Ombudsman awards. [17000658810025][17000658810026] - (!) The merit of the award was upheld on the admitted fact that the metering device was defective from the date of connection to replacement, justifying the adjustment/revision of bills. [17000658810007][17000658810027] - (!) Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 establishes a redressal mechanism, with Ombudsman under Sections 42(6)-(7) and Regulations 2010, but no statutory appeal/revision lies against Ombudsman awards. [17000658810017][17000658810022] - (!) The Single Judge’s view limiting relief due to Section 42(8) was found not tenable; constitutional review can proceed. [17000658810015][17000658810025] - (!) The appeal was partly allowed: maintainability confirmed; merits upheld concerning the defective meter. [17000658810028]
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 rem
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.
Point of law: Electricity - Disputed factual aspects cannot be and should not be gone into in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. We are therefore of t....
The court established that a licensee can raise a supplementary bill based on average consumption despite delays in meter replacement, provided it adheres to the terms of the agreement.
The survival of the relief claimed in a writ petition is dependent on the dismissal of the respondent's representation against the impugned order.
The court established that the billing for defective meters must comply with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant regulations, and upheld the decisions of the statutory forums....
Courts may decline to interfere in factual disputes and uphold administrative decisions based on relevant material.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
