The Rajasthan High Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the grievance sought to be ventilated is that the order impugned dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited amounts to discriminatory practice by State authorities, which is based on considerations of particular community and that is Constitutionally invalid.
The PIL has been filed by one Mahavir Singh Amaravat.
When the matter came before the Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas , Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing for the State referring to his reply and a subsequent modified order dated 05.04.2022 submitted that a general order irrespective of any particular festive occasion of any community has been issued in continuance of earlier letter dated 01.04.2022 that all the authorities concerned, who are incharge of supply of electricity have been directed to ensure proper electricity supply to ensure uninterrupted water supply and all other facilities during various festivals.
Further referring to the averments made in the reply, AAG submitted that the authorities have not made any distinction community-wise while making efforts to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply. He has referred to what has been stated in para 3 of the reply, which is reproduced as below:
“3. That it is humbly submitted that it is a usual practice of the electricity distribution companies i.e. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited to issue instructions to all subordinate offices to maintain proper and uninterrupted supply of power so that minimum inconvenience is caused to the public at large. The main object of issuing such orders is to instruct subordinate offices, not to take unplanned shutdowns and in case, any fault/tripping is caused in the supply of the electricity, the same should be resolved/cleared within minimum possible time. The letters are issued on regular basis in festival seasons and from no stretch of imagination the action can be called as discriminatory qua one group or section of the society.”
Taking into consideration what has been stated in subsequent order dated 05.04.2022 and what has been stated on affidavit of the reply quoted, the Bench was not inclined to pass any further orders in the matter as the petitioner’s grievance based on letter dated 01.04.2022 no longer survives. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.