Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer, Kptcl Now ... vs Ishwaramma And Anr. on 2 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2006KANT23, ILR2005KAR5206, 2006(3)KARLJ625, AIR 2006 KARNATAKA 23, 2006 (1) ALJ 173, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2961, 2006 A I H C 486, (2005) 36 ALLINDCAS 858 (KAR), 2005 (36) ALLINDCAS 858, (2005) ILR (KANT) 5206, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 625, (2006) 2 ICC 646, (2006) 2 CIVLJ 620, 2006 (1) ALL LJ NOC 173, 2006 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 359 (KAR)
Author: Ajit J. Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J. Gunjal
ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.
1. Issue Rule.
2. The petitioners who are the custodians of power supply to the State have challenged the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar, vide Annexure-C.
3. Few facts are required to be stated for the disposal of the petition.
The petitioners' case is that the board is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in exercise of the powers under Sections 49 and 79 of the Regulations called K.E.B. Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. They have statutory force. The 1st respondent herein had availed power supply for commercial purpose to run a flour-mill under the installation bearing R.R. No. MMP-6. The power supply availed by the 1st respondent is for commercial purpose. The installation of the 1st respondent was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vigilance Squad, Bidar and it was found that the 1st respondent was committing theft of electrical energy by passing the meter and connecting directly to the mains by having two way switch. The Inspector Officer was prima-facie satisfied that the 1st respondent had committed theft of electrical energy disconnected the power supply on 28-10-2003. A mahazar was also drawn in this regard and a criminal case was registered against the 1st respondent in Crime No. 290/2003. The Inspecting Officer evaluated the loss to the petitioners at Rs. 20,174/- and levied compounding fee of Rs. 20,000/-. A statutory notice was also issued to the 1st respondent inviting objections within a stipulated period of time and in the event of non-filing of objections, the 1st respondent was asked to pay the amount demanded in the notice. Suffice it to say that the 1st respondent acknowledged the billing notice, but however, did not chose to reply to the said notice nor paid the back billing payment and also the compounding fee. The 1st respondent also did not choose to file an appeal before the appellate authority as the said demand was an appeallable one under the provisions of Section 44.01 of the Code.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a complaint under the provisions of Section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the demand made by the petitioners herein. She also maintained an application in the said proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Bidar for interim mandatory injunction not to disconnect the power supply to the installation bearing R.R. No. MMP-6 and also to hand over the 5 HP motor of the 1st respondent which was seized on 28.10.2003 and also for damages of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The 1st respondent also filed an interlocutory application before the forum not to disconnect the power supply. According to the petitioners, it had already disconnected the power supply on the date of the inspection itself. The District Consumers Redressal Forum at Bidar under Annexure-C, the impugned order, on certain conditions directed the petitioners herein to restore the electricity supply, one of them being on deposit of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the petitioners as security amount. The said order is under challenge in this petition.
5. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would primarily contend that the District Consumers Redressal Forum at Bidar lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He would submit that as the Consumer Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the question of interim direction as per Annexure-C is without jurisdiction. He would further submit that the power supply to the installation of the 1st respondent has been disconnected on the date of inspection itself and since then there is no power supply to the said installation. In the circumstances, he submits that once when it is found that the District Consumers Redressal Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, the impugned order is liable to be interfered and set aside.
6. It is noticed that the 1st respondent is served but unrepresented. Respondent No. 2 is represented by the learned Government Pleader and he was also heard in the matter.
7. The moot question which requires to be considered in this proceeding is whether the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 would oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any other forum. The relevant provision which deals with the ousting of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as any other forum is Section 145. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'Act') would read as under:
"145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction:- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. "
Section 126 of the said Act would deal with determination of the loss. Section 127 deals with the appellate forum under which the aggrieved party can file an appeal and Section 44.01 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission would deal with the power of the appellate authority. A reading of Section 145 of the Act would clearly indicate that no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any other matter which the assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 is empowered to determine or act, only on such conditions being satisfied the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as any other forum is ousted.
8. This question regarding the Civil Courts or any other forums having jurisdiction to deal with the situation on hand fell for consideration to before the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar, . The Apex Court while interpreting the scope of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was of the opinion that by necessary implication the cognizance of the Civil Court as contemplated in the present set of circumstances is ousted. As a consequence, the Apex Court held that the Civil Court in the circumstances will not be justified in entertaining the complaint or giving a declaration when an adequate remedy is provided under the act for the redressal of the grievances. The relevant discussion is to be found at para 10 which reads as hereunder:
"10. The question then arises: whether the Civil Court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as contended by Shri. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were raised in the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same given up. Section 9 of C.P.C. provides the Civil Court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication is barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above."
The said decision is followed by this Court in the case B. Narayana Swamy v. Theasst. Executive Engineer Elecl. K.E.B. and Anr., ILR 1999 KAR 1665. An identical view is taken by this Court in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Ors. v. Messrs. Oriental Timber Industries, 1993 (2) Kar L.J. 461 .
9. In view of the fact that Section 145 of the Act by implication would exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other forum on adjudicating the claim or action of the petitioners, impugned orders passed at Annexure-C cannot be sustained.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure-C dated 6th May 2004 is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs. Rule is made absolute.