1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.733/2001 Ashok Lodha Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 26-11-2009 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Shrimali, for the respondent. The appellant is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8.8.2001 by which the writ petition of the petitioner challenging the demand of sum of Rs.2,63,816/- has been dismissed. The appellant approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition No.2553/97 raising several pleas and also challenged the validity of the conditions No.29 (B), 29(F), 29(G), 29(H), 29(I) and 29(K) of the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the Supply of Electricity, 1964 and demand made by the Assistant Engineer vide letter dated 29.5.1997 (Annex.2) and the consequential bill (Annex.3) and further challenging the communication issued by the Superintending Engineer dated 28.6.1997 (Annex.13), and notice dated 30.6.1997 (Annex.14) issued by the Assistant Engineer under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The said writ petition of the writ petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 18.2.1999 with giving permission to petitioner to approach the Settlement Committee of the respondent Board for redressal of his grievances. The Settlement 2 Committee was permitted to decide the matter in stipulated period of time. The Settlement Committee pursuant to the order dated 18.2.1999 decided the petitioner's representation vide order dated 11.1.2000. Aggrieved by the order of Settlement Committee dated 11.1.2000, petitioner now again approached this Court by filing the writ petition No.677/2008. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 8.8.2001 after holding that the questions raised by the petitioner in writ petition are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge further observed that petitioner has already availed his chances before the Board Level Settlement Committee and they have considered his case and has found against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the appellant has specifically challenged the demand raised against him by the respondent authorities with the plea that the proper procedure was not followed as well as the computation made for raising the demand against the petitioner is faulty and erroneous and on the basis of that faulty and erroneous calculation, a huge demand has been raised which the appellant is not liable to pay. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Board Level Settlement Committee put some questions to the appellant which might not have been answered by the representative of the appellant satisfactorily, and now it is not relevant as the petitioner has already been acquitted for that charge by the Court but the another contention of the petitioner that the complete procedure as has been prescribed under the General Conditions of Supply(supra) has not been followed and the illegal demand has been raised against the appellant, has not been considered by the Settlement Committee. 3 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that conduct of the appellant disentitles him for any relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge took note of the conduct of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the contention raised by the appellant as well as the fact which was submitted to the Board Level Settlement Committee by the Officer of the respondent Department has already been considered which is clear from Para 13 of the impugned order of the Settlement Committee. However, learned counsel for the respondent after reading the entire order of the Settlement Committee dated 11.1.2000 could not show us that where the calculation shown by the department has been considered in light of the submission made by the appellant before the Settlement Committee. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, rightly observed that disputed questions of fact which were raised in the writ petition, could not have been gone into in the writ jurisdiction but at the same time, it is not in dispute that the disputed questions of fact were required to be decided by the Settlement Committee and for that reason, matter was referred to the Settlement Committee by the order of this Court in earlier round. From the order passed by the Settlement Committee, it is clear that though the facts were recorded but there is no decision on these disputed questions of fact, whether the department made calculation in accordance with the rules and conditions of General Conditions of Supply for which the appellant raised the dispute, and that 4 the demand raised is not outcome of the correct calculation in accordance with the General Conditions of Supply. We find that appellant's case about the determination of the amount for which demand has been raised, has not been considered by the Settlement Committee. In view of the above reasons, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant by observing that the Settlement Committee has already considered the case of the appellant. The appellant has already been acquitted of the charge of committing theft, will not be relevant before the Settlement Committee in view of the stand of the appellant and the Settlement Committee may now consider whether the demand raised against the appellant was correctly calculated or not. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of. The petitioner may approach the Settlement Committee within 15 days and get the date fixed, and thereafter Settlement Committee shall decide the matter expeditiously. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. [JAGDISH BHALLA], CJ. Praveen