[2025:RJ-JP:27629] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18922/2024 1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Executive Engineer, Niwai Tehsil Niwai District Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Assistant Engineer, Niwai, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk, Rajasthan. 3. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Secretary, Vidhyut Marg, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus Phoolchand Kumawat S/o Hanuman Prasad Kumawat, R/o Kasba Niwai, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk, (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Palia Ms. Ayushi Joshi Ms. Shambhavi Jaimini For Respondent(s) : -- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/07/2025 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 0has been filed by petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and be further be pleased to: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or directions in the nature thereof, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 [Annexure- 11], 05.07.2024 [Annexure-13] and all consequential order. ii. Issue any appropriate writ, order, or directions considering the concurrent finding of the District Consumer Forum, State Consumer Disputes [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (2 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. iii. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” Assailing the impugned orders learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that due to a bonafide mistake of the concerned clerk at the time of issuing demand note dated 18.07.2018, in lieu of releasing an agricultural electric connection to the petitioners, the cost of the transformer to the tune of Rs.80,000/- could not be added as prescribed under the Agricultural Connection Policy and thus, the petitioners issued additional demand against the respondent vide demand letter no.2018 dated 05.10.2018 soon after realizing the mistake. It submitted that by issuing additional demand notice, no illegality was committed by the petitioners. Counsel further submits that mistake in accounting the dues applicable to the respondent/complainant (herein after refered as “complainant”) was a curable mistake and same was rectified without any delay and such mistake does not fall within the deficiency of service and in these circumstances learned District Consumer Forum committed illegality in entertaining the complaint filed by the complainant, but all the courts failed to consider this aspect of the case. I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners and gone through the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (3 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] As a matter of fact by demand notice dated 18.07.2018, the respondent was asked to deposit Rs.21,750/- for getting electric connection, which he deposited with the petitioner Nigam but he did not deposit additional demand of Rs.80,000/- and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Tonk wherein the complainant prayed that respondents be directed not to recover/debit Rupees 80,000/- in the bill and compensation of Rupees 55, 000/- be awarded on the account of mental agony and legal expenses. Reply was submitted by the petitioners and denied all allegations made in the complaint and raised objection that in issuing additional demand notice, no illegality has been committed by them and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. Adjudicating the above complaint, vide order dated 27.09.2017, the learned District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint made by the respondent and restrained the petitioners to debit additional demand of Rupees 80,000/- in the electricity bill and directed to pay compensation of Rupees 8,000/- to the respondent. The petitioners assailed the said order in appeal before learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur. However, learned State Commission also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.11.2019 and affirmed the order dated 27.09.2019. The revision filed by the petitioners before the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, challenging the order dated 29.11.2019 and 27.09.2019 has also been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (4 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] It is apparent that the petitioners have lost their case before all the three forums on merits. Both learned State Commission and learned District Consumer Forum, gave concurrent findings while rejecting the case of the petitioner whereas learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dismissed the revision observing that it has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. I have carefully gone through the orders under challenge. I also find that petitioners do not have any case to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as scope of interference in jurisdiction exercise by the trial court as well as appellate court is very limited. Article 227 of the Indian Constitution confers the power of superintendence upon the High Courts over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, albeit barring those constituted under laws pertaining to the armed forces. This supervisory power encompasses both administrative and judicial aspects and it may be exercised at the instance of an aggrieved party or even suo moto by the High Court. The aim behind such conferment is to see that the subordinate courts and tribunals function within the limits of their legal authority, thereby maintaining the sanctity of judicial operation and making sure that administration of justice is not thwarted by procedural or jurisdictional overreach. Basically, this power is there to uphold the discipline and legal conduct of courts within the territorial [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (5 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] jurisdiction of the High Court. It should also be noted that the powers conferred under this article are distinct from the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. A comparison between Articles 226 and 227 indicates that they are employed for very different purposes. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue appropriate writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. It primarily serves to address violations of constitutional or legal rights and is often invoked when no other adequate remedy is available. Although discretionary in nature, the power under Article 226 is intended to provide relief in cases of manifest injustice, illegality, or breach of natural justice. However, it is not designed to serve as an appellate mechanism, and the High Court ordinarily does not interfere with the findings of fact unless there is a demonstrable perversity or patent illegality. Turning to Article 227, the purpose and scope of this Article sets it apart from Article 226. The power of superintendence is meant to ensure that subordinate courts operate within the boundaries of their jurisdiction. It is not designed to address errors apparent on the record or questions of law. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal. In situations where the law specifically prohibits revisional jurisdiction, the High Court would need a very strong reason to interfere under Article 227. This is because the intention behind the Article was not to allow High Courts to [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (6 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] bypass or override existing statutory limitations. The power given under this Article is neither unlimited nor intended to address hardships in individual cases. It is a well-defined power grounded in judicial principles and should be used to uphold the integrity of justice and maintain the High Court’s status as the top judicial body in the state. The power under Article 227 is not unbounded. It must be exercised in accordance with well- established judicial norms. This Court finds it important to mention that this is a discretionary remedy i.e., no litigant can claim it as a matter of right. The High Court, in exercising this power, does so to uphold the rule of law and maintain the sanctity of the judicial process as the apex judicial authority within the state. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, AIR 2015 SC 3269, has explicitly enunciated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be employed to avoid statutory remedies or to re-examine findings of fact, and need not be invoked where the statute allows an appeal or revision, except where the same has been barred expressly. Even where no revision or appeal is possible, High Court intervention under Article 227 is justified only on the occurrence of jurisdictional mistake or a clear miscarriage of justice. Turning now to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has invoked Article 227 correctly which is appropriate given the nature of the relief sought. However, on examining the pleadings and the material placed on record, this Court finds no demonstration of gross illegality, perversity, or [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (7 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] jurisdictional error in the order passed by the three forums. The findings assailed by the petitioner do not reflect any abuse of process or miscarriage of justice so as to warrant interference under the limited supervisory jurisdiction conferred by Article 227. It is well settled that this Court is not to function as an appellate authority under Article 227 and cannot re-evaluate factual determinations or substitute its own conclusions unless there is a patent violation of law or procedure. The present case does not fall within those limited exceptions. Thus this court finds it appropriate to hold that the respondent cannot be made liable to pay additional demand only on the ground that same was not raised earlier due to so-called bonafide mistake of the concerned clerk of the Nigam. I also do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. The prayer of the petitioner Nigam has rightly been rejected at all three forums. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and should be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional cases. It is not meant for overturning factual findings unless those findings are clearly unreasonable or perverse. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court cannot act like an appellate court reviewing the correctness of decisions made by lower courts. The High Court’s role under Article 227 is that of a sentinel on the qui vive, ensuring that subordinate judicial forums function within the confines of their legal authority. [2025:RJ-JP:27629] (8 of 8) [CW-18922/2024] Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /45