Delhi District Court
Sanjay Saini vs . N. D. P. L. & Ors. on 27 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI, CIVIL JUDGE2 (CENTRAL),
ROOM NO.231, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.199/14
Sanjay Saini Vs. N. D. P. L. & Ors.
Sh. Sanjay Saini
S/o late Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H. NO. 4600, Arya Pura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi07 ..................... Plaintiff
Versus
1. North Delhi Power Ltd.
Grid Sub Station Building,
Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi--9
2. Enforcement Assessment Cell (EAC)
SECTOR 3, ROHINI
DELHI85
.................... Defendants
Date of Institution: 16.07.2010
Date of reserving the judgment: 25.11.2014
Date of Judgment: 27.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 1 /202. It is stated that the plaintiff is the user of the Meter bearing K. No. 35100310946M, installed at 4608, Aryapura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi for the consumption of electricity, initially the meter was installed in the name of Sh. Sat Pal, who was the the grandpaternal uncle of the plaintiff and the defendant is the power supplier to the general public under the name and style of M/s. North Delhi Power Ltd.
2.1. It is submitted that the plaintiff purchased three Air conditioners on 10.10.2009 and 15.10.2009, two AC's were purchasing on 15.10.2009 of 1.5 tons and 1.0 ton and the third one was purchased on 10.10.2009 of 0.75 tons. The sanction loan was available to the plaintiff, prior to the purchasing of the said AC's, 1 KW therefore the plaintiff applied for the enhancement of loan sanction from 1 KW to 5 KW on 05.03.2010. The proposed sanction was allowed by the defendant No.1.
2.2. It is submitted that the defendants inspected the premises of the plaintiff on 11.05.2010 and calculate the load, used by the plaintiff in his house the meter is for domestic use only, during the inspection the Inspector found that the load utilised by the electrical appliance of the plaintiff and on the basis of said inspection a Bill was issued in the name of the plaintiff dted 11.05.2010 bearing bill No. 10067422968 payable by 21.06.2010 of Rs. 87,987/ of last 12 months.
2.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff represented his case through a complaint dt. 18.05.2010 to the Enforcement Section of the NDPL and was summoned by them. It is stated that it was mentioned in the said complaint that the meter was not the tempered one but the seals were removed by the officials of NDPL about four year back for putting in CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 2 /20 into operation. It is stated by the plaintiff that two geysers by the Inspectors, showing the consumption of 3000 Watt each in the report. Whereas the said Geysers are operated by the Gas and there is no consumption of electricity in the said Geysers, similarly the AC's shown by the Inspector consuming a load of 2250 KW of 1.5 Tons, where as the actual load consumption is 1980 KW. Similarly of AC 1.00 Ton showing the consumption is 1250 KW and the consumption of .75 Ton AC was shown as 1550 KW, whereas the actual consumption is 980 KW.
2.4. It is submitted that the plaintiff has purchased the said AC's in the month of October, 2009, whereas the bill assessment of last 12 months. It is mention by the plaintiff that at a time one AC is used, generally the plaintiff uses 0.75 ton of AC during the night for the entire family members and not through out the day all the AC's. It is stated in the evident that the Inspector have noted down the Gas Geyser in their report but at the time of preparation of the said bill dated 11.05.2010, they have extra 6 KW load in the name of Geyser, whereas the Geezer never consumed a single unit of electricity.
2.5. It is submitted that the plaintiff visited the officer of the defendant no. 2, where he has explained the entire facts but it was not considered by the officer concerned and a general rebate of 25% was allowed by the officer concerned subject to the payment of the entire amount in one go and reduced the bill to Rs. 61,170/ payable by 19th July, 2010 in one installment. Plaintiff is entitled for this rebate of 25% but the officer concerned have not reduced the load as shown by the report of the inspector. It is submitted that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the bill, if correctly prepared as per the actual consumption by the CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 3 /20 plaintiff and is also is also entitled to a general rebate of 25% after reducing the differences shown consumption and actual consumption.
2.6. It is submitted that the defendants are threatening the plaintiff for disconnection of electricity if the plaintiff shall not pay the entire bil amount in one go and defendant are not ready to correct the bill a per the actual consumption. It is stated that if the plaintiff does not pay the entire amount in one installment because the plaintiff and his family would suffer unnecessary in summer season.
3. Defendant was served and filed written statement taking preliminary objection to the effect that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not approached to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.
3.1. It is also stated that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration & injunction, but the plaintiff has not paid the advalorem court fee on the quantum of the subject bill, hence the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the resent form and the same is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. It is also stated that the subject connection has been sanctioned in the name of Sh. Satpal, hence, the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit as he is not a registered consumer of the answering defendant. It is also stated that there is no agreement between the parties, as such there is no privity of contract between the parties.
3.3. In reply on merits, it is submitted that as per record, the CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 4 /20 connection bearing K. No. 35100310946 has been sanctioned in the name of Sh. Satpal with sanctioned load of 5.000 KW for domestic purpose and installed at 4608, Pathar Wali Gali, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit as he is not registered consumer of the subject connection. It also stated that the plaintiff did not disclose anywhere in the plaint regarding the status of the registered consumer namely Sh. Satpal, who was allegedly grand paternal uncle of the plaintiff.
3.4. It is also submitted that all the allegations made by the plaintiff in plaint are concocted, hence, are denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff is misleading to this court and twisting the fact with malafide intention to get the relief in the grab of filing the present suit. It is specifically denied that general rebate of 25% was ever allowed by the officer concerned subject to payment of the entire amount. It is also denied that the plaintiff is entitled for any rebate of 25% as there is no such Provision either in DERC Regulation or in Electricity Act, 2003.
3.5. It is submitted that an inspection was conducted on 11.05.2010 at premises bearing No. 4608, Pathar Wali Gali, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi against K. No. 35100310946 by the enforcement department of the defendant company in the presence of the plaintiff at site, who associated to joint team throughout the inspection proceedings and also received and signed the copy of the inspection reports without any protest meaning thereby he has admitted the contents of the inspection report and in this regard while settled.
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 5 /203.6. It is stated that the following irregularities were observed
i) Connected load was found as 14.751 KW against the sanctioned load of 5.000 KW.
ii) Meter box seals were found missing.
iii) Meter terminal seal was found missing.
iv) Both half seals of the meter were found tampered.
v) Both sticker seals of the meter were found tampered.
vi) LHS rivet was found tampered.
vii) Tampered marks were found on internal screws of the meter on segregation.
Viii) Paper IR seal No. 191 dt. 11.05.2014, duly signed by joint team, was pasted on meter box to maintain the status quo.
3.7. It is submitted that due to aforementioned observations/irregularities, a primafacie case of D.A.E was booked against the plaintiff/consumer and a show cause notice was prepared by the members of inspecting team, whereby the consumer/plaintiff was requested to attend the personal hearing on 18.05.2010. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a written representation dt. 18.05.2010 thereby he stated that he has not tempered the meter and disputed the connected load. It is further submitted that the consumption pattern of the plaintiff was studied where average recorded consumption was found 281.02 units per month and average computed consumption was found 749.46 units per month, hence, recorded consumption is not uniform, which is much less than only 37.50% as per DERC Guidelines. Thereafter, considering consumption pattern and merits of the case, and after considering the submission of the consumer/plaintiff, a detailed speaking order has been passed on CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 6 /20 31.05.2010 by the authority. And the copy of the speaking order was sent to the consumer/user on 02.06.2010. It is submitted that glarying difference in the consumption pattern amply corroborate the findings of inspecting team making it out to be a case of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (D.A.E.). It was held by the Assessing Officer that the consumer/user are liable to pay the bill as per Provisions of Tariff Schedule, 2007 and Regulations and Sections 52 & 53 of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standard Regulations and Section 135 & 138 of Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, the final assessment bill to the tune of Rs. 77,592/ with due dt. 21.06.2010 has been raised as per DERC guidelines and the consumers/user is liable to make the payment to the same.
3.8. It is stated that the inspection was carried out in accordance to law and connected load has been considered as per inspection report in accordance with the stipulation of DERC as above. It is further submitted that the onus of safe custody of meter lies with the consumer in accordance to Regulation 35 (iii) of DERC SC & PC Regulation 2007. It is submitted by the observation of inspecting team are considered in order especially under the circumstances, as case has been well photographed with respect to conected load and position of meter. The action of the defendant is correct and legal and has been taken as per law.
3.9. It is submitted that the consumer/user has violated the provision of Rule 56(2) of Indian Electricity Rules' 1956, accordingly to which, the consumer shall use all reasonable means in his power to ensure that no such seal is broken otherwise than by the supplier. It is submitted that CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 7 /20 the consumer/user is the custodian of the meter, hence, he is duty bound to keep the meter in correct position. It is submitted that the at the time of inspection, the connected load was found 14.751 KW against the sanctioned laod 5.00 KW. It is submitted that putting of excess load amounts to theft of electricity, as the plaintiff has no right to use the excess load as per agreement. It is submitted that if the connected load is more than sanctioned load, no prior opportunity of hearing is required before disconnection of supply.
3.10. The content of para 11 of the plaint, as also stated to be wrong and denied. It is stated that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
3.11. Accordingly, the para No.13 of the plaintiff is also stated to be wrong and denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not valued the suit property and has not affixed the advalorem court fee on the quantum of theft bill.
3.12. A prayer is made to dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Replication to the WS has been filed by the plaintiff where the averment and assertion made in the WS are denied in toto and the stand taken by the plaintiff in his plaint is reaffirmed and reiterated.
5. Vide order dated 12.10.2010 the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 8 /20
1) Whether the suit of plaintiff is not barred U/s 145 of Electricity Act2013? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the bill no. 10067422960 for Rs. 87987/ is liable to be modified as per actual consumption? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction against the defendant to raise appropriate and correct bill as per actual consumption? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction against disconnection of electricity? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief on account of concealment of material facts? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as he is not registered consumer and there is no previty of contract between the plaintiff and defendant?OPD
7) Relief.
6. Plaintiff examined in respect of his case Mr. Sanjay Saini as PW1. The plaintiff relied upon the documents PW1/1 to PW1/5.
6.1. During the cross examination, it is admitted by the plaintiff that the registered consumer of connection in question is one Sh. Satpal and he is not the registered consumer. It is submitted that Sh. Satpal was the grandfather of the plaintiff.
6.2 The witness further depose that he is applied for transfer of connection in the name of his mother, 1 ½ year before. He is also CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 9 /20 admitted that he is not filed any document on record. It is denied by the witness that he is being deposing about the transfer of connection falsely. The witness admitted the inspection was carried out in our premises on 11.05.2010 in his presence and he also further admitted that he signed on the inspeciton report. The witness denied that the connection load was 14.751 KW against the sanctioned load of 5 KW. The witness admitted that the outside seal of meter box were not in existence. He deposing that the terminal seal were not there as earlier, and the official of the defendant removed the terminal seals while informing use that they change the seal. It is stated that nothing in writing was given by the officials of the defendant at that time. It is denied that the meter meter was tempered and he expresses that he don not know whether the sticker seals was also found tempered.
6.3. He denied that the left hand side rivet was also found tempered during joint inspection. It is also denied that the internal screw of the meter was also having tampered mark. PW1 does not objected the observation of the joint inspection team, while signing on the report. He admitted that the four ceiling fans of 60 Watt and three window AC were installed and one AC was of 1980 Watt another was of 1250 Watt and third was of 980 Watt. He denied that he is deposing falsely in respect of load of AC. He admitted that two geysers were found installed during the inspection. He admitted that both the geysers of GAS. He deposing that the plaintiff has not applied for reinspection. He denied that he was indulged in theft of electricity. The witness admitted the show cause notice served upon him and he applied when he called upon for meeting, they further denied that speaking order as passed by defendant is correct and liable to make the payment of bill in question.
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 10 /207. In respect of his case the defendant cross examined, DW1 Sh. Kapil Kumar, presently working as Sr. Manager (Project Engineering and Contract), with NDPL. He placed on reliance Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4. He was cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff.
7.1. The witness admitted that he was not the member of Inspecting Team and whatever has been deposed by him is on the basis of DW1/A as mentioned in the inspection report and show cause notice. The witness deposed that he is further no personal knowledge about the inspection and raid. He admitted that he only passed a speaking order against the plaintiff and he was not a part of the inspection team. It is stated that he arrived at the observation that the plaintiff had applied for a change of meter on the basis of evidence and other material provided by the department which have detailed by him in para no.2 & 3 of his affidavit.
7.2. DW2 Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta was also cross examined by counsel for plaintiff who is Sr. Manager of plaintiff. He place reliance on document Ex. DW2/1 to DW2/4. In the cross examination the witness deposed that he has raided the house of plaintiff on 11.05.2010 along with Bhupesh Bhandari and Sandeep. He deposed that he was on routine check up, the meter box seals and terminal seals found missing and the left seals of the meter sticker seal of tempered and the left hand side rivet of the meter found also tempered. He claimed that it was found that internal screws also had marked on them. He admitted that Sanjay Saini/representative was present on the spot and he was informed by the plaintiff that the terminal seal and meter box seal were removed by the department concerned. The DW2 also claimed that his CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 11 /20 colleagues checked the connected load at the time of inspection. The witness could not telling whether the plaintiff informed the inspector with regard to the status of the of the geysers. The witness express his awareness about the application moved by the plaintiff with regard to the change of the name/consumer. It is denied that the facts which he has mentioned in his statement were actually not there on the spot and that he had stated so to prepare a case against the plaintiff. It is also denied that the rivet and the half seal of the meter was not removed by the wireman of the department or the meter box seal and meter terminal seal were removed by the wireman of the department. It is claimed that the he had not removed the meter from the premises.
8. Now my issue wise finding is as under: For the sake of convenience issue no. 6 would be decided First:
6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as he is not registered consumer and there is no previty of contract between the plaintiff and defendant?OPD 8.1 The onus to prove the issue was cast upon the defendant and in course of cross examination it has been admitted by the plaintiff that the registered consumer of connection in question is in the name of one Shri Satpal Singh and the plaintiff is not the registered consumer.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that Shri Satpal was brother of the grand father of the plaintiff. It has also not been made clear whether, Shri Satpal Singh was alive or not at the date of the institution of the suit and if he is alive why he has not been made a party thereto.
8.2 The PW1 witness also cliams in his cross examination that he had CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 12 /20 applied for transfer of connection in the name of his mother one and half years before. He further admitted to have not filed any such document on record. It leads to one inescapable presumption that no such application was ever made by plaintiff. Further, after this series of admission it is clear that the plaintiff is not registered consumer of the defendant.
8.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punit Plastic Industrial Vs. Rawat Hozari reported in AIR 1985 DEL 257 and further in the case of Pawan k tondan Vs. NDMC reported in AIR 1986 DEL 454 it has been held that if the plaintiff is not registered consumer than he has no right to file the suit.
I have no hesitation in holding that locus standi to file the suit in hand and has apparently no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also to be noted that the finding on this issue would have far reaching affect on the claim of the plaintiff, since the very basis of filing the present suit has been negated by the evidence on record. The issues is decided accordingly.
9. Issue wise finding on issue No. 55) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to discriminatory relief on account of concealment of material facts ? OPD.
9.1 The onus to prove the issue on the defendant. It was argued by the defendant that the plaintiff has not approached to the court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts that he has not disclosed in the plaint that the fact that he is not the register consumer & on what basis the owner permit him to use the meter bearing no. K CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 13 /20 No. 3510031094614 installed at 4608 Arya Pura Subzi Mandi. Further it is argued that the plaintiff has filed for declaration and injunction but the plaintiff has not paid advolorem court fee on the quantum of the subject bill and accordingly the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff place reliance on Sarjivan Singh vs. Delhi Vidhut Board, Where it was held, that " where the bill has been raised by the electricity department which is prima facie legal a declaration must be prayed for the effect that the bill is incorrect or illegal, before the plaintiff can legally for and injunction against the recoveries made on the basis of such bill and further plaintiff is liable to pay the ad volorem court fee on the quantum of bills raised by the defendant.
9.2. It has been claimed that plaintiff himself is liable to be persecuted for mal practices by consumer and non discloser of the fact the plaintiff was the registered consumer of the connection render him not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction. Further more the attention of the court was drawn to the inspection Report no 162814 of Action report no. 180988 which were prepared on the site on the basing factual position showing various irregularities and the same was signed by the plaintiff without any protest. On the basis of report a case of D.A.E was booked against the plaintiff. It has been argued that it shows that plaintiff was engaged in the theft of electricity. From the rival contention of the counsel for parties & from the material available on record it is appeared that there is substance is the line of argument of the ld. counsel for defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled for the discriminatory relief on account of concealment of material facts. Issue decided accordingly.
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 14 /2010. Issue wise finding on issue no. 2, 3 & 4.
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the bill no. 10067422960 for Rs. 87987/ is liable to be modified as per actual consumption? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction against the defendant to raise appropriate and correct bill as per actual consumption?OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction against disconnection of electricity? OPP 10.1. It is apparent at onus to prove of these three issue was cost upon the plaintiff. From the deliberation in the previous issues it is established that the plaintiff has neither the locusstandi to file the present suit nor he has come to the court with clean hand and he has also suppressed various material facts from the court. The material available on record establishes that inspection report no. 162814 and action report no. 180988 were prepared at site on the basis on factual position and the same were proved by the defendant witness DW2 Sh. Satis Kumar who appeared in the witness box and deposed that the joint inspection was carried out at the subjuct premises on 1.05.2010 and he was one on the member of joint team. He also deposed that on the 11.05.2010 and inspection was carried out at the subject premises team no. 4608, Pathar Wali Gali, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, in respect of the connection bearing no. 35100310946 by the enforcement department of the defendant company, in the presence of the user/PW1 at site, who accompanied to the joint team, throughout the inspection proceedings and also received and signed the copy of inspection reports. It is claimed that necessary photography has been CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 15 /20 carried out by Sh. B. P. Nawani, the member of the joint inspection team, to show the exact position at site. The copy of inspection report is exhibited as EXDW2/1 and the report of copy of action report is exhibited as EXDW2/2 and bearing signature at point A in both the document. It is also pointed out the inspection report also bears the signature of representative of the plaintiff, which is marked B. It is further deposed by the witness that the many irregularities were observed by the said inspection.
i) Conected lad was found as 14.751 KW against the sanctioned load of 5.000 K.W.
ii) Meter box seals were found missing
iii) Meter terminal seals were found missing.
iv) All sticker seals of the meter were found tempered
v) LHS rivet was found tempered.
vi) tempered marks were found on internal screws of the meter on segregation.
Vii) Paper IR seal no. 191 dated 11.05.2010, duly signed by the joint team, was pasted on the meter box, to maintain the status quo.
10.2. He deposed that that on the basis of this observation of irregularities, a prima facie case of DAE was booked against the plaintiff and a show cause notice dated. 11.05.2010 was prepared by the defendants emplyeed at site, whereby the consumer/plaintiff was requested to attend to personal hearing on 18.05.2010. copy of the said notice exhibited DW2/2 he also duly signed. It has been claimed by the defendant that the using of electricity beyond the sanctioned load amounts to theft of electricity and disconnection of supply on the ground without notice is not illegal. It has been held by the Apex Court CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 16 /20 in Orissa State Electricity Board Vs. IPI Steel Ltd. in 1995 (4) SCC 320 and held that it should be considered to equally efficacious for the purpose adjudging the issue as to whether the consumer has at any given point of time, in contravention of the agreement with the board, availed and drawn electricity in excess of the contracted load. It is submitted that in the present case as well that if connected load was more than sanctioned load. No prayer opportunity was herein require before disconnection of supply however, still the defendant have given a due notice of herein to the plaintiff.
10.3. It is argued that the existence of excess load, then the sanction load is the violation of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, which amounts to unauthorized use of Electricity and in this regard. It has been held in the case of Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs. M/s Sri Seeta Ram Rice Mill reported in 201 STPL (Web) 942 SC, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with and answered determinative, the questions framed in the judgment.
10.4. It has been observed that wherever consumer commits the breach of the terms of the agreement, regulations and the provisions of the Act by consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned and connected load, such consumer would be in blame. And under liability, within the ambit and scope of section 126 of the 2003 Act.
10.5. It has been also explained as unauthorized use of electricity means as appearing in Section 126 of the 2003 Act, is an expression of wider connotation and has to be construed purposively in contrast to contextual interpretation, while keeping in mind the object and CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 17 /20 purpose of the Act. The cases of excess load consumption than the connected load inter alia would fall under explanation (b) (iv) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act, besides it being in violation of regulations 82 and 106 of the regulations and terms of the agreement. It is also the matter of record that in the course of inspection on 11.05.2010 all the seals of the meter were found tampered and it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the law in case of Udham Singh Vs. BRPL reported in 136(2007) DLT500, that mere irregularity in meter seals, or breakage of glass, etc. do not authorize to licensee to issue show cause notice assessing officer to observe consumption pattern before personal hearing granted to consumer (Regulation 25
(iv) read with regulation 26 (ii) petitioner premises inspected on three occasions previous second inspection and report not in dispute seals observed intact and reports signed by Field Engineer mere circumstances that CT box meter was missing itself could not lead to conclusive proof of tampering or D.A.E. It is also related it is tender of the same keep meter in correct position.
10.6. On the other hand plaintiff primary failed to show to why so many irregularities were present in the meter which is admittedly in there control and position. Further in evidence DW1 admitted that the out side still meter box was a existence and determine seal was also exists since beginning and it is claimed official of the defendant remove the personal seal while informing that they will change the same however no endorsement in bill or any document is found pertaining to the same found on record. The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that the meter was purposely tempered by him.
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 18 /2010.7. Further more the witness admitted the inspection carried out in his presence admittedly the signature of report. Beyond that nothing more is required on the part of defendant to show that the inspection was carried out, and in the presence of the plaintiff and the irregularities found in the meter existed at the time of inspection and no possible explanation has been rendered by the plaintiff with regard to the same. Keeping in view the same it is apparent that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and accordingly he has not entitled for the relief claim by him by way of injunction. The issue no. 234 is accordingly decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
11. Issue wise finding on issue no. 1
1) Whether the suit was not barred under Section 145 of electricity Act 2013?OPP 11.1. It is claimed by the defendant and the suit was not maintainable before this court, as the court has not jurisdiction to try/ decide the present suit. It is submitted that this case is pertains to theft of electricity for which special electricity Courts have been constituted. It is also submitted that the electricity Act, 2003 has been passed and the same came into force with effect from 10.06.2003 and accordingly under Section 153 of the Electricity Act for the trial of the offences pertaining to section 135,138,150 & 151 of the electricity Act and the power of the Special Courts has been defined under Section 154 of the electricity Act and as per the provision of Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 . It is submitted that by the Judgment of High Court in the case of B. L. Kantroo Vs. BSES RPL, It has been held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction by necessary implication to entertain the suit for CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 19 /20 declaration and injunction against the specially constituted forum in view of the specific provision, found in the electricity Act and thereafter the similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Smt. Deepika Kalra Vs. BSES RPL reported in 2009 (4) JCC 2601 and in para no. 12 of the judgment, it has been held that Civil court has not jurisdiction by necessary implication to entertain a suit for declaration and injunction against specific constituted forum in view of the specific provisions, found in the Electricity Act.
11.2. It is submitted that the plea relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even if it was not raised before the Ld. Trial Court. It is a matter of great wonder the submission with respect to the jurisdiction being barred in view of the Section 145 has not been made before the court earlier. Had the defendant pressed the issued, the same may have been dealt as an preliminary issue by the court. It is apparent that in the light of judicial precedent sited above the suit is hit by Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.
Issue is decide accordingly.
12. Relief:
The suit of plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Let, the decree sheet be drawn.
File be consigned to record room after due to compliance.
Announced in Open Court (KADAMBARI AWASTHI)
today i.e. 27.11.2014 Civil Judge02/Central
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
CS NO. 199/14 Page No. 20 /20