MISRA, J. - (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. The counsel for the respective sides have vehemently contested the case of the respective parties but having perused the order of the Settlement Committee as contained in Annexure-5 and the letter written by the petitioner to the Addl. Chief Engineer, Annexure R-6, it is clear that it settles down the whole controversy. The Settlement Committee has already stated after hearing the petitioner that the outstanding amount has been settled which was to be paid from 31st August 1992 to January 10, 1995 and for the period under which the petitioner had suffered dis-connection, the minimum charges has also not been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner also accepted this amount and paid it without recording that he is paying the amount without any prejudice to his claim, but, surprisingly, the petitioner again challenged the said order. The petitioner has not realized that matter regarding disputed bills are referred to the Settlement Committee as it is neither possible nor legally permissible to adjudicate the question of fact as to how much the consumer is required to pay towards electricity bills and for this very purpose the dispute is referred to Settlement Committee. The petitioner acted wisely while approaching the Settlement Committee suo moto but has diluted its effect by approaching again by filing this writ petition claiming refund of the amount. If he had any grievance regarding the unreasonableness of the order of the Settlement Committee, he ought to have placed it before the same Committee on the date when he was heard and having not done so at that point of time, no dispute can be allowed to be raised in this writ petition. The consumer has to realize that this court cannot act as an appellate court against the order of the Settlement Committee for examining its jurisdiction on a question which was not even raised before the Settlement Committee and hence the consumers are expected to raise all the grievances related to the disputed bills before the Settlement Committee itself and unless the same is raised before the Settlement Committee, the consumer cannot be allowed to raise that dispute for the first time in the writ petition which was not raised before the Settlement Committee. Mr. Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner urged herein that the Settlement Committee has involved the amount for the period beyond 1995 also but the petitioner had not raised this point before the Settlement Committee that it had included the amount for the subsequent period i. e. beyond 1995. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is, therefore, unfounded and cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ petition challenging the order of the Settlement Committee. If he has any grievance in this regard, he can approach the Settlement Committee afresh by establishing, that period beyond 1995 was not required to be adjudicated by the Settlement Committee on the earlier occasion but if the same had rightly been adjudicated, the Settlement Committee would be under no obligation to review the order passed earlier. The writ petition, under the circumstances, has no merit and it stands dismissed. .;