[2026:RJ-JP:101] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10424/2015 Ghewar Nath Yogi Son Of Shri Hardev Nath Yogi, Village Jogiyon Ka Nada, Post Sargaon, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer Mobile No. 9928036632 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Ajmer Circle Through Its Superintending Engineer Tcc-, Ajmer 2. Superintending Engineer Ajmer District Circle Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hathi Bhatha Power House, Ajmer 3. Assistant Engineer Rural Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kishangarh, District Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Yogi with Mr. Yenu Satyam For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain (through VC) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/01/2026 1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents by disconnecting the electricity connection of petitioner; (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the disputed amount of penalty imposed by the respondents; (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the respondents to reconnect the electricity [2026:RJ-JP:101] (2 of 3) [CW-10424/2015] connection of account No.1601/0268 to the petitioner immediately; (d) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this petition multiple prayers have been made by the petitioner including setting aside the disputed amount of penalty and restoring the electricity connection of the petitioner. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken a preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition. She submits that as per Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act of 2003”), the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the Electricity Ombudsman, but without availing the statutory remedy, he has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition by passing the jurisdiction of the Electricity Ombudsman. 4. Considering the above objection taken by counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing an application/appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman in terms of Section 42(6) of the Act of 2003, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be disposed of on this count alone. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Electricity Ombudsman in terms of Section 42(6) of the Act of 2003. [2026:RJ-JP:101] (3 of 3) [CW-10424/2015] 6. In case, any appeal/application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, it is expected from the Ombudsman to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, ignoring the period of limitation. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/17