[2023:RJ-JD:39904]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9602/2023

M/s Munna Process House, E-205 (A), Industrial Area, Ii Phase,

Balotra, Dist. Barmer - 344022 (Raj.), India Through Its

Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Chopra S/o Sh. Dalichand Ji Chopra

Aged About 59 Years, R/o Lohno Ka Chowk, Balotra, District

Barmer Rajasthan, - 344022.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Rajashtan Electricity Regulation Commission, Through Its

Chairman Vidhyut Viniyamak Bhawan, Sahakar Marg,

Near State Motor Garage, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001.

2.

The Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Through Its

Chairman And Managing Director, New Power House,

Industrial Area, Jodhpur, Raj - 342005.

3.

Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jdvvnl, Branch Office -

Balotra, Opposite Nahata Hospital, Balotra Distrcit

Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ayush Goyal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

Ms. Kumkum Shah through VC for

Mr. Vinay Kothari

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

21/11/2023

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy rests decided by judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.11242/2023 (Bhansali Dyeing, Proprietorship/

partner Ravi Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on

09.11.2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:39904]

(2 of 3)

[CW-9602/2023]

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the

above submission.

The Court while partly allowing the aforesaid writ petitions,

held as under:-

11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the

observations made hereinabove, the present petitions

are partly allowed.

11.1. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

01.09.2022,alongwith the entire proceedings and

orders pursuant thereto, only to the extent of levy of

interest/carrying costs on the original principal

amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the

interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other

heads and categories, are quashed and set aside.

Needless to say that the amount to be charged

towards special fuel surcharge can be recovered from

the consumers only to the extent of original principal

amount to the tune of Rs.3,048.64/- Crores.

11.2. This Court observes that the aforesaid order

has already covered almost all the issues in the

present litigation, however, in some of the instant

writ petitions, the order dated 13.06.2019has been

challenged and the said order is also hereby quashed

and set aside, only to the extent of the

interest/carrying costs amount payable on the

original principal amount as on the date of passing of

the said order; thus, recovery of special fuel

surcharge to be made only to the extent of the

original principal amount in pursuance of the said

impugned order on the same analogy as discussed

above for quashing the order dated01.09.2022.

During the process of making such recovery, amount,

if any, already recovered towards special fuel

surcharge from the consumers by the respondents,

the same shall be duly adjusted. Except for recovery

of the original principal amount, the entire

proceedings and orders in pursuance of the said

impugned order are also quashed and set aside.

11.3. Thus, the respondent-DISCOMS shall be

accordingly free to proceed to recover the respective

original principal amounts from the consumers under

the head of special fuel surcharge, strictly in

accordance with this judgment.

3.

In view of the submission made and in view of the fact that

the present matter being covered by the judgment of

[2023:RJ-JD:39904]

(3 of 3)

[CW-9602/2023]

Bhansali Dyeing (supra) is not refuted by learned counsel for the

respondents, the present writ petition is also partly allowed in

terms of the same directions as issued in the case of Bhansali

Dyeing (supra).

4.

Stay petition and all pen