J. R. CHOPRA, J. - (1.) A question has arisen as to whether this petition should be heard by the Division Bench or it is within the competence and jurisdiction of the Single Judge. After the amendment of the Rule 55, the writ petitions challenging the vires of the provisions of any Act or Rules made thereunder are to be heard by a Division Bench. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of cost variation and fuel adjustment clause of the tariff framed under section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The question is as to whether the tariff framed under section 49 of the aforesaid Act is a rule made under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the tariff has been issued in exercise of the power under section 49 and so it is a subordinate legislation and the word 'rule' occurring in clause (xi) of Rule 55 of the Raj. High Court Rules should be construed in the sense that the whole body of subordinate falls in the expression 'rules' so the tariff issued or framed by the Board in exercise of the power u/sec. 49 of the aforesaid Act may also be considered to be a 'rule'. We are unable to agree with the said submission of the learned counsel. Section 78 of the Electricity (Supply) Act confers rule making power on the State Government. It lays down that the State Government may make rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act. The expression used in clause (xi) of rule 55 is "rules made thereunder" meaning thereby rules made under the provisions of any Act. It is only such rules which would fall within clause (xi) of Rule 55 and in our opinion tariff framed in exercise of the power under section 49 of the Act cannot be taken to mean rule made under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In view of the above consideration, in our opinion, the writ petition falls within the jurisdiction of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the same be placed before the Single Judge. .;