JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned orders/communications/summons dated 21.4.2023 (Annexure-4), 25.4.2023, 1.5.2023 (Annexure-5), 23.5.2023 (Annexure-6), 24.05.2023 (Annexure-7) & 30.5.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondents, qua the Petitioner, may be declared, without authority of law, non-est, arbitrary and illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential directions, and

(ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a registered Public Limited Company. The lignite mining cum power project was envisaged by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1996. The lignite mines pertaining to the project i.e. Kapurdi and Jalipa, vested in the respondent no.2. The Mine Development & Operation Contract was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.2-BLMCL, wherein the capacity of the petitioner was shown as Mine Operator.

2.1. The petitioner participated earlier in two other bids, that were conducted by the respondent no.2, but was declared disqualified. In the next bid, that was conducted through National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in the year 2019, the petitioner was emerged as the lowest bidder, but despite the same, the respondent-BLMCL still did not declare the petitioner to be the successful bidder, and has been extending the bid validity of the petitioner.

2.2 The respondent no.1-Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) vide order dated 21.04.2023, directed the petitioner to furnish the documents in regard to the details of monthly mining expenses since beginning of the project, till 31.03.2023.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent-BLMCL issued a letter dated 25.04.2023, whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish details of the actual monthly expenditure incurred in raising operation from the inception till 31.03.2023, on the strength of an order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the respondent-RERC.

2.4. The respondent-RERC vide letter dated 01.05.2023 asked the petitioner to comply with direction contained in the order dated 21.04.2023. Thereafter, the respondent-RERC vide orders dated 23.05.2023 & 24.05.2023 directed the petitioner to provide the aforesaid details, and to make appearance through the authorized representative or the officer – in person -on 30.05.2023 at 11:00 AM alongwith the requisite details. On 30.05.2023, the respondent-RERC issued another order, whereby last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear through its authorized representative on 06.06.2023 and provide the requisite information.

2.5. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the nature of the information or data as sought by the respondents vide the impugned notices/letters/orders is a private/proprietary and confidential in nature, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be mandated to supply such information to the respondents.

3.1. It was further submitted that the respondent-RERC does not have the jurisdiction to examine actual monthly mining expenses of the petitioner in the name of a self propounded theory i.e. “Prudence Check”. It was also submitted that there is no price control law on the activity of raising lignite. The Mining is governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and it was not subject of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2003’).

3.2. It was further submitted that the power under the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been granted to the C