Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of these writ petitions, the petitioners entrepreneurs, operating manufacturing units, have questioned legality of the notices 6.6.13 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Jodhpur Discom, Rawatsar, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remain present before the said authority on the date specified to raise the objections, if any, in respect of the recovery of the demand quantified.
(2.) AS per the case set out by the petitioners in the petition filed, the recovery is sought to be effected on account of defect in the meter installed at their premises. However, a perusal of the impugned notices reveal that the demand is sought to be raised by the respondents towards the cost of Line/Sub Station. According to the petitioners, the POP Association, Baramsar Rawatsar filed objections against the demand sought to be raised as aforesaid, but to no avail. In the reply to the writ petitions filed, the respondents have taken the stand that vide impugned notice, the petitioners were extended an opportunity of hearing against the proposed demand, however, they have not availed the same. It is submitted that the impugned demand is not based on account of defects found in the petitioners' electricity meter. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, demand is raised inasmuch as, at the time of release of the electricity connection, the petitioners did not deposit the cost of Line/Transformer/Sub Station, which they were required to deposit in conformity with commercial circular No. 170 dated 19.7.03 and the relevant rules. It is submitted that prior to filing of the present writ petitions, the petitioners had preferred civil suits before the Civil Judge (JD), Rawatsar, which were rejected as barred by law. It is submitted that as per Clause 52 of 'Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity -2004' laid down by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission in pursuance of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Connected Matters) Regulations -2004 issued in exercise of power conferred under Sections 43 to 48, 50, 55 and 56 of Electricity Act, 2003, any dispute relating to charges payable by a consumer except assessment under Clause 48(B) or (C) i.e. the matter with regard to unauthorised use and other offences of electricity and compounding of an offence, may be referred by the consumer to the appropriate Consumer's Dues Settlement Committee and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned demand is raised by the respondent -JVVNL unilaterally after a lapse of so many years without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that without there being any finding regarding the irregularities having been committed by the petitioners, the demand raised is absolutely unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no opportunity to question the legality of the audit objection and therefore, the demand raised solely on the basis of audit objection is not sustainable in the eyes of law.;