ARORA LATEX UDYOG Vs. R S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE specific question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether an order passed by the Settlement Committee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB for short), after hearing the consumer can be allowed to be challenged on a ground which was not raised by the consumer before the Settlement Committee.

(2.) THE fact under which this point arises is related to a dispute which arose between RSEB and the petitioner who was a consumer of electricity for his industry supplied by RSEB for the period of 31. 08. 1992 to 10. 01. 1995. THE petitioner disputed the amount demanded by the RSEB for the above period and he suo moto raised this dispute before the Settlement Committee of the RSEB who after granting opportunity to the petitioner, passed an order as contained in Annexure R-5 and R-6 which are annexures to the reply filed by the RSEB. Annexure R-5 is the minutes of the meeting of the Settlement Committee held on 6. 3. 96 and the Settlement Committee after hearing Mr. D. K. Arora on behalf of the petitioner industry took a decision that Shri Arora on behalf of industry was right to the extent that minimum charges for dis-connected period of electricity which extended from January 1993 to September 1993 was not justified as this was the period during which the petitioner had been saddled with the order of dis-connection. Hence, it was waived but 18% interest was ordered to be charged on the outstanding amount from the date of dis-connection upto the date of re-connection. THE petitioner himself accepted this order and wrote to the Addl. Chief Engineer that he would pay the amount of electricity bills adjudicated by the Settlement Committee but he should be granted liberty to pay this in six instalments. This was allowed to the petitioner and thereafter he also paid the amount towards the demand. Unfortunately, he did not feel satisfied even after this and filed this writ petition raising a grievance that the amount paid to RSEB should be ordered to be refunded as the order of the Settlement Committee is unjustified. He has further raised a dispute that the amount beyond the period of 1995 has also been included in the order of Settlement Committee which is beyond the disputed period.