[2025:RJ-JP:9838] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 318/2025 Smt. Saira Bano W/o Mohammad Ramzan, Resident Of Plot No. 31-A, NA, Sanjay Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Registered Office Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhotwara, Jaipur(Rajasthan) 3. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom, District Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Mohd. Roshan S/o Hazi Gafur Khan, R/o- 26, Krishna Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/03/2025 1. By means of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the levy of additional charges to the tune of Rs.97,980/- from the petitioner, fundamentally on the ground that such charges, added in the monthly electricity bill of petitioner for month of September, 2024, pertain to the erstwhile owner, namely, Mohd. Roshan (respondent No.4 herein) from whom petitioner purchased the Plot No.31-A, NA, Sanjay Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur through registered sale deed dated 23.08.2010 and later on, electricity connection was also transferred in his name in the year 2019. [2025:RJ-JP:9838] (2 of 2) [CW-318/2025] 2. Having heard counsel for petitioner and from perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition, the dispute in respect of levy of the electricity tariff to the tune of Rs.97,980/- under the head of other charges, prima facie, seems to be between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner, i.e., respondent No.4 herein, which is a private dispute between two persons. However, if petitioner disputes the levy of such charges of other dues by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Itself, then also by virtue of Section 42 (5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a redressal forum in the name of Electricity Ombudsman is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 3. In view of above, counsel for petitioner is fair enough to make a prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition in order to avail the alternative remedy available to the petitioner either before the Civil Court or Electricity Ombudsman whichever is advised to him. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty as prayed for. 5. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /277