Delhi District Court
Delhi Bar Association vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd on 16 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR : ADJ-17 : THC : DELHI.
CS No. 52/14
Delhi Bar Association,
Through its Secretary,
Sh. Nitin Ahlawat,
Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi-110009. .........Plaintiff.
Vs.
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
Through its C.E.O.,
Grid Sub-Station Building,
Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009.
Service to be effected through,
Manager (Legal),
Office of the defendant at
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. .......Defendant.
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint as well as the application U/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC for grant of injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2. First of all, I would like to deal with the application of the defendant U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. In the said application, the defendant has stated that the plaintiff is seeking directions from this Page no. 1 of 28 Court, by way of the present suit, against the defendant to charge the electricity consumption charges from the plaintiff and its members in respect of monthly bills under the domestic category instead of the bills, which are raised on non-domestic tariff. It has been further stated that in view of Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, tariff determination is the sole prerogative and statutory responsibility of the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that any person, who is aggrieved by the Tariff Determination Order passed by the Ld. DERC can prefer an appeal U/s 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity constituted U/s 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It has been further stated that any person, who is aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, can file an appeal U/s 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC. It has been further stated that U/s 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings and grant any injunction in respect of any action taken in pursuance of the powers conferred under the Electricity Act, 2003 and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the present suit U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It has been further stated that the present matter Page no. 2 of 28 raises serious and grave issue of the comity of jurisdiction between this Hon'ble Court and the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that the Ld. DERC being the specialist statutory authority constituted to deal with issues of electricity tariff determination and categorization of consumers of electricity is the authority competent to examine the issues and exercise jurisdiction on tariff related issues including classification of supply and categorization of consumers. It has been further stated that any interference by this Court would amount to interference with the statutory determination of the powers of the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that as per own averment of the plaintiff as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff had submitted a representation on 06.07.2013 requesting therein that the bills raised on non-domestic tariff be withdrawn immediately and the tariff be levied on domestic user basis. It has been further stated that though, the plaintiff has contended in the present suit that the said representation dated 06.07.2013 was issued to the defendant but, in fact, the said representation was made by the Coordination Committee of all District Bar Association to the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has preferred to keep mum on the outcome of the said representation. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact from this Court that Ld. DERC vide letter Page no. 3 of 28 dated 11.09.2013 has unequivocally rejected the representation submitted by the plaintiff. It has been further stated that on 31.07.2013, the Ld. DERC has passed a tariff order for the financial year 2013-14 and the tariff schedule provided therein specifically provides for non-domestic tariff for lawyers' chamber Block in Court Complexes. It has been further stated that after final adjudication of the matter by the Competent Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 i.e. after passing of the tariff orders dated 26.08.2011, 13.07.2012 and 31.07.2013 by the Ld. DERC, only remedy available with the plaintiff and its members is to approach the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity U/s 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.It has been further stated that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 have either not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure provided under the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such, the plaint in the present suit is liable to be rejected. It has been further stated that the Ld. DERC has not committed any irregularity of procedure in passing the Tariff Order, nor any contention or grievance has been raised by the plaintiff in this regard in the present suit and as such, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. It has been further argued that U/s 62 Page no. 4 of 28 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Ld DERC has to determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Ld. DERC is empowered to categorize the consumers. It has been further stated that U/s 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the procedure for tariff determination has been laid down. It has been prayed that the plaint in the present suit be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following authorities :
3. Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P. Cited as AIR 1969 SC 78 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has held as under :
"35...
(1) where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure."
4. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further relied upon an authority cited as Civil Appeal nos. 5775-5780 of 2007 titled as Uttar Page no. 5 of 28 Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.T.P.C. Ltd. & Ors. wherein, it has been held as under :
"Our attention was drawn to the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY REGULARTORY COMMISSION V. CESC LTD. reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715 and more particularly to Para 102 of the same judgment, which reads as under:
"102. We notice that the Commission constituted under Section 17 of the 1998 Act is an expert body and the determination of tariff which has to be made by the Commission involves a very highly technical procedure, requiring working knowledge of law, engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management. A perusal of the report of ASCI as well as that of the Commission abundantly proves this fact. Therefore, we think it would be more appropriate and effective if a statutory appeal is provided to a similar expert body, so that the various questions which are factual and technical that arise in such an appeal, get appropriate consideration in the first stage also. From Section 4 of the 1998 Act, we notice that the Central Page no. 6 of 28 Electricity Regulatory Commission which has a judicial member as also a number of other members having varied qualifications, is better equipped to appreciate the technical and factual questions involved in the appeals arising from the orders of the Commission. Without meaning any disrespect to the Judges of the High Court, we think neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court would in reality be appropriate appellant forums in dealing with this type of factual and technical matters. Therefore, we re commend that the appellate power against an order of the State Commission under the 1998 Act should be conferred either on the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission or on a similar body. We notice that under the Telecom Regulatory of India act, 1997 in Chapter IV, a similar provision is made for an appeal to a Special Appellate Tribunal and thereafter a further appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law only. We think a similar appellate provisions may be considered to make the relief of appeal more effective."
Looking to the observations made by this Court to the effect that the Central Commission constituted under Page no. 7 of 28 section 3 of the Act is an expert body which has been entrusted with the task of determination of tariff and as determination of tariff involves highly technical procedure requiring not only working knowledge of law but also of engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management, this Court was firmly of the view that the issues with regard to determination of tariff should be left to the said expert body and ordinarily High Court and even this Court should not interfere with the determination of tariff."
5. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further relied an authority cited as BSES Ltd. Vs. Tata Power Co. Ltd. (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 195 wherein, it has been held as under :
"The provisions of the Act and Regulations show that the Commission has the exclusive power to determine the tariff. The tariff approved by the Commission is final and binding and it is not permissible for the license, utility or anyone else to charge a different tariff."
6. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further relied upon authority cited as (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 470 Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board and ors. wherein, it Page no. 8 of 28 has been held as under :
"Electricity- Electricity(Supply) Act, 1948-S. 49, Terms and Conditions for Supply of electricity to consumers notified by Board in exercise of power under S. 49 and made applicable to all consumers availing supply of electricity- Held, are statutory in character-Merely because written agreement was entered into by the Board with each consumer will not make the terms and conditions purely contractual."
7. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further relied upon an authority cited as 129(2006) Delhi Law Times 213(DB) titled as Madhu Garg & Anr. Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. wherein ,it has been held as under :
"(i) Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000-Section 28(2), 11-Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2000-Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Section 21(2)-Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Sections 49, 79-Electricity Dues-New Owner can be compelled to pay electricity dues of previous owner on transfer of premises-There is no distinction between purchaser of premises who was aware about Page no. 9 of 28 outstanding electricity dues against previous owner/tenant and one who was not aware of it-In either cases, dues have to be paid by new owner/occupant before supply can be continued/restored-This is because of General Condition of Supply being statutory in nature(being delegated legislation), question of bonafide or malafide does not arise-New owner/occupant, whether he has heir or successor or not, has to pay outstanding dues if he wants continuation/restoration of electricity connection-Notice of existence of arrears is not requirement in Clause 2.1(iv) of General conditions of Supply-Also, there is no requirement for licensee to first initiate recovery proceedings by filing civil suit against old consumer before disconnecting supply.
(ii) General Conditions of Supply-Clause 2.1(iv) (Framed under Section 21(2), Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 49, Electricity Supply Act, 1948)-Piece of delegated legislation-No illegality in said clause as it comes within purview of Tariff order framed by Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission as well as provisions of Section 21(2) of 1940 and Section 49 of 1948 Act- General Page no. 10 of 28 Conditions of Supply do not require approval of State Legislature under Proviso to Section 79 of Electricity(Supply) Act as they are not Regulations made under section 79.
8. No reply to the said application has been filed on record by the plaintiff despite grant of repeated opportunities by the Court. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has straightway addressed the arguments on the aforesaid application of the defendant without filing any reply to the said application.
9. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of both the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
10. Before discussing the said application on merits, it becomes imperative to have a glance at the pleadings of the parties as contained in the present suit.
11. The plaintiff, which is a registered body of the lawyers, has filed the present suit for Declaration, Mandatory and Permanent Injunctions on the ground that the land on which the lawyers in Tis Hazari Complex have built their chambers has been given by the plaintiff association on license basis. It has been further stated that the members Page no. 11 of 28 applied to the erstwhile DESU for energization of electricity meters and as per the agreement, the then DESU, thereafter DVB, NDPL and now the defendant have energized the connections and had installed meters in the chambers of the members of the plaintiff association on domestic tariff. It has been further stated that the erstwhile NDPL have issued a letter dated 25.02.2013 to the plaintiff stating therein that the meter replacement was done in the chambers of the lawyers only to retrieve and analyze data for the aspect of automated meter reading, because the old meters were not having that facility. It has been further stated that in the said letter dated 25.02.2013, it was clarified that the domestic tariff shall be charged in respect of the chambers of the Advocates. It has been further stated that to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff association, the defendant company, unilaterally and without any notice, changed the category of the electricity bills from domestic to non- domestic. It has been further stated that the plaintiff association lodged the representation dated 06.07.2013 and 29.07.2013 with the defendant company and requested the defendant company to immediately withdraw the bills raised on the basis of non-domestic tariff. It has been further stated that the Ld. DERC failed to give any justifiable response to the representation of the plaintiff association, whereas, on the contrary, the Page no. 12 of 28 defendant company kept on assuring the plaintiff association to the effect that they had written to the DERC for a final response. It has been further stated that the plaintiff association received a letter dated 04.09.2013 from the defendant company, wherein, it was stated that the defendant company had written a letter to the Ld. DERC and response was expected very soon from the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that the plaintiff association received a letter dated 27.09.2013 from the defendant company wherein, it was stated that the request of the plaintiff was not accepted. It has been further stated that in the said letter dated 27.09.2013, the defendant had threatened that if the change of the tariff from domestic to non-domestic category would be opposed, the same would be unwarranted and against the law. The plaintiff association has alleged that the issuance of the letter dated 27.09.2013 is not only illegal, but also arbitrary, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice. It has been further stated that the chambers of the lawyers of the plaintiff association is nothing, but an extension of their residences, which are being used by the lawyers for giving consultation, advice to the litigants. It has been further stated that in no way, the chambers of the lawyers can be equated with any trade or business, which can be termed as non-domestic. It has been further stated that the chambers of the Page no. 13 of 28 lawyers in Tis Hazari Complex, cannot be equated with the chambers of the lawyers in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi because the ownership of the chambers in Tis Hazari Courts is transferable from one member to the other. It has been further stated that the lawyers in Tis Hazari Courts are the owners of their chambers and as such, they cannot be equated at par with the lawyers having chambers in other Court complexes. It has been further stated that the letter dated 27.09.2013 is illegal and is liable to be declared as null and void and hence, the present suit.
12. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the letter dated 27.09.2013 issued by the defendant be declared as null and void. The plaintiff has further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply to the chambers in the Tis Hazari Courts Complex. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to change the tariff category from non-domestic to domestic in the bills already raised and to raise the future bills on the basis of the domestic tariff only.
13. In the written statement filed on record by the defendant, the defendant has taken a categorical stand that the defendant company is Page no. 14 of 28 merely a licensee under a licence granted by the Ld. DERC U/s 20 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000. It has been further stated that by virtue of the said licence, the defendant company has been engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the various parts of Delhi. It has been further stated that the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission was constituted under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 and was continued in terms of Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Delhi. It has been further stated that the Ld. DERC is a statutory body which regulates the conditions for supply of electricity and determines the tariff to be levied by the Discoms. It has been further stated that the Ld. DERC not only provides the tariff order on annual basis, but also prescribes the provisions for supply code which is mandatory to be followed by the Discoms in view of the provisions contained under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has been further stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by the Ld. DERC, Discoms are bound to follow the regulations prescribed by the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that the defendant cannot change the tariff category in respect of the chambers of the lawyers situated in Tis Hazari complex until and unless the chambers of the lawyers are brought into the ambit of domestic category by the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that any person Page no. 15 of 28 aggrieved by the tariff order passed by the Ld. DERC can prefer an appeal before the statutory Appellate Body in terms of Section 111 of Electricity Act 2003. It has been further stated that various institutions/ consumers such as Delhi Jal Board, DMRC, Northern Railways are availing the remedy provided by the law before the Appellate Authority. It has been further stated that the plaintiff herein has duly represented its case before Ld. DERC and after hearing the parties, Ld. DERC went on to frame and notify the tariff order for the year 2013-14 stipulating therein that the lawyers chambers in the Court complexes shall be charged on non-domestic tariff. It has been further stated that the plaintiff association made a representation dated 06.07.2013 and 29.07.2013, which were forwarded to the Ld. DERC for consideration, but the said representations were considered and rejected by the Ld. DERC vide letter dated 11.09.2013, which was issued to the General Secretary of the plaintiff association. It has been further stated that the matter was also agitated before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by Delhi High Court Bar Association in W.P. (C) No. 9410/2009 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide orders dated 08.03.2013 had disposed off the said petition with the observation that the same would lie to the Tribunal/ Appellate Authority. It has been further stated that the present suit is bad for non-
Page no. 16 of 28 joinder of the Ld. DERC. It has been further stated that the non-domestic tariff is applicable to all the lawyers chambers situated in other court complex such as Dwarka District Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Rohini Courts, Patiala House complexes etc. The defendant has denied that the letter dated 27.09.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted. It has been further stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter C.A. No. 1065/2000 has held that the lawyers chambers cannot be treated as domestic user. It has been further stated that this makes no difference as to whether the members of the plaintiff association are the owners or the licensee of the chambers. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
14. During the course of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that when, the then, Delhi Vidyut Board installed the meter for the first time in the lawyers chambers, there was an agreement with the DVB and as per, the terms of the agreement, the tariff has to be domestic. It has been further argued that without giving any hearing to the plaintiff association, the defendant company has changed the tariff. It has been further argued that the agreement cannot be changed unilaterally. It has been further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the lawyers having chambers in Tis Hazari Court complex Page no. 17 of 28 are in the form of exception because they are the owners of their chambers. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not all together ousted as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the authority cited as 2008 (106) DRJ 272 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, as under :
"Electricity Act, 2003 : Sections 42 & 145 - Bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court only in respect of those matters which fall under Section 126 and 127 - It is not an omnibus Section which restricts the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of all and every matter that may arise concerning use of electricity by a consumer - Where as bill is faulty, the consumer has an option that before approaching the Civil Court he may take resort to Grievance Redrassal system created under Section 42 (5) - If he is not satisfied, he still has the remedy to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his dispute."
15. Whereas, on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, relying upon the ratio of the authorities, relied upon by the defendant has argued that the plaintiff association cannot claim that the orders were Page no. 18 of 28 passed by the Ld. DERC without hearing the association of the lawyers. It has been further argued that the Ld. DERC passed the orders dated 26.08.2011, 13.07.2012 and 31.07.2013 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff association and after considering the submissions of the plaintiff association, Ld. DERC rejected the contention of the plaintiff association. It has been further argued that vide letter dated 11.09.2013, which was addressed to the General Secretary of the plaintiff association, the representation submitted by the plaintiff was unequivocally rejected by the Ld. DERC. It has been further argued that the defendant company has no role to play in the determination of the tariff. It has been further argued that the tariff approved by the Ld. DERC is final and binding. It has been further argued that the terms of the alleged agreement cannot come to the help of the plaintiff because tariff order is statutory in character. It has been further argued that the suit as a whole is not maintainable.
16. Going by the ratio of the abovestated authorities, it is apparently and evidently clear that the issues with regard to determination of tariff are to be left to the expert body i.e. to the DERC, in the case in hand, in view of the scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also crystal clear that the tariff approved by the Commission is final and Page no. 19 of 28 binding and it is not permissible for the licensee, utility or anyone else to charge or even claim a different tariff. The terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board (DERC, in the case in hand) are statutory in character. A tariff order is statutory in character and applies to all, being an order in rem, applicable to all categories of consumers and stakeholders alike. A tariff order and the general conditions of supply contained therein is a piece of delegated legislation and has statutory force.
17. Now, the vital question to be considered by this Court is as to whether, in the light of the abovesaid guiding factors, the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is maintainable or not.
18. If the allegations as contained in the plaint, are carefully gone through, it becomes evidently clear that the sole grievance of the plaintiff is with respect to the tariff, which is being charged by the defendant on non-domestic basis for the chambers of the lawyers situated in Tis Hazari Courts complex. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant cannot change the tariff category from domestic to non- domestic unilaterally without giving an opportunity of being heard because the chambers of the lawyers were being charged domestic tariff earlier since the times of erstwhile DESU or DVB. It has been vehemently Page no. 20 of 28 argued that there are contracts, which were executed by the members of the plaintiff association with the erstwhile DVB.
19. I would like to point out here that the plaintiff association has not placed on record any such agreement. The defendant has placed on record photocopies of certain agreements. A perusal of the said agreements reveal that the applicant had undertaken to pay the charges in accordance with the rates, which shall be determined from time to time. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the determination of the tariff is not the prerogative of the defendant and rather, the determination of the tariff squarely falls within the domain of the DERC. I have no hesitation to hold that the defendant has rightly argued that it is bound to follow the regulations determined by the Ld. DERC. To my mind, the plaintiff has utterly failed to show that the determination of the tariff falls within the jurisdiction of the defendant.
20. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the Electricity Act, 2003 is an Act enacted by the Parliament of India. As such, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid Electricity Act, 2003 supersedes any contract, which has been allegedly executed in between the members of the plaintiff association and the erstwhile DVB. I have no hesitation to hold that the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on this count Page no. 21 of 28 is not sustainable.
21. The next submission of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff association is that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the plaintiff association and the category of the tariff was changed unilaterally. To my mind, the abovesaid submission of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is also devoid of any substance. There is ample material on record to show that various representations of the plaintiff association were considered by the Ld. DERC and thereafter, the category of the tariff was changed after rejection of the representations of the plaintiff association. Copy of the letter dated 11.09.2013 addressed to Sh. Nitin Ahlawat, the then, General Secretary of the Co-ordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi issued by the Ld. DERC is there on record, which clearly shows that the representations of the plaintiff association were considered and rejected by the Ld. DERC. Furthermore, it is apparently clear that the tariff orders dated 31.07.2013, 13.07.2012 and 26.08.2013 were passed by the Ld. DERC after considering the submissions of the plaintiff association. As such, it is fallacious to argue that the Ld. DERC changed the tariff category unilaterally without giving an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff association.
22. Last, but not the least, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has Page no. 22 of 28 vehemently argued that the chambers of the lawyers situated in Tis Hazari Courts complex have a distinct status because the lawyers in Tis Hazari Courts complex are the owners of their respective chambers, whereas, this is not so in the case of the chambers situated in other Court complexes.
23. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has filed on record copy of the orders dated 19.07.2014 in the case titled as Rohini Courts Bar Association vs. TATA Power Delhi Distribution. Perusal of the orders dated 19.07.2014 reveals that the Ld. JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum-Guardian Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi allowed an application of the defendant U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and rejected the plaint. It is true that the orders dated 19.07.2014 passed by the Ld. JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum- Guardian Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi are not binding upon this Court as has been rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff association, but the question is as to whether there is any substance in the abovesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff association. To my mind, the answer is in the negative. I am of the opinion that Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the defendant has rightly argued that the tariff category has been decided by the Ld. DERC on the basis of the nature of practice of the Advocates. The nature of the practice of the Page no. 23 of 28 Advocates remains the same. I am of the opinion that it has been rightly pointed out that the chambers of the lawyers cannot be distinguished merely because the same are situated in Tis Hazari Courts Complex and the lawyers are the owners of their respective chambers because the nature of the practice remains the same, where ever, the chamber of an Advocate may be. Furthermore, it has to be seen that the representations of the plaintiff association have been considered by the Ld. DERC and the abovesaid plea of the plaintiff association stand also considered and rejected by the Ld. DERC.
24. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that vide letter dated 25.02.2013, the defendant company had stated that domestic tariff shall be charged in the chambers of the Advocates and the status of the billing shall remain the same even after the meter replacement in the chambers of the lawyers. I have already stated herein above that the determination of the category of the tariff does not fall within the domain of the defendant company and rather, the same falls within the exclusive domain of the DERC.
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the authority cited as 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB) titled as B.L. Kantroo Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. has held as under :
Page no. 24 of 28 "(i) Electricity Act, 203 - Sections 126, 127, 135 to 139, 145, 153, 154, 154(5) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9 - Theft of Electricity - Civil liability - Jurisdiction of Civil Court excluded -
Jurisdiction specifically conferred on Special Court - Scheme of Electricity Act is complete in itself and jurisdiction Civil Court to take cognizance of cases under Act, by necessary implication and stood barred - Act provides for jurisdiction of Tribunals and/or appropriate Forum and also hierarchy of appeals or revisions and gives finality to orders passed thereunder - Consumer cannot approach Civil Court without exhausting alternative remedies provided under Electricity Act - Civil Court has no jurisdiction by necessary implication to entertain suit for declaration and injunction against specially constituted Forum in view of specific provisions found in Electricity Act - Impugned order dismissing plaint upheld.
(ii) Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Court has jurisdiction to go into and try disputed questions of civil nature, where fundamental fairness of procedure violated.
26. As stated by me herein above, even our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has categorically held that scheme of electricity act is complete in itself. Section 62 of the Act pertains to the determination of the tariff, Section 64 thereof lays down the procedure for tariff order, Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly lays down that any person, who is aggrieved by any order made by the appropriate commission may Page no. 25 of 28 prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Section 125 of the said Act clearly stipulates that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the remedy does not lie before this Court. It has to be further seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has already held in W.P.(C) 9410/2009 titled as Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. that the appeal lies to the Appellate Authority as provided under the Electricity Act, 2003.
27. Ld. Counsel for the defendant, relying upon the ratio of the authority titled as BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar cited as 2008 (106) DRJ 272 has vehemently argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not all together ousted and the consumer can approach to the Civil Court, if a faulty bill is raised by the discom.
28. It is true that in the abovesaid authority, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that in case of a faulty bill, the jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court. It is also true that in the authority titled as B.L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try disputed questions of civil nature, where fundamental fairness of procedure has Page no. 26 of 28 been violated. There cannot be any deviation from the proposition of the law from the abovestated authorities, but in the case in hand, the controversy does not pertain to a faulty bill but rather, the same pertains to the category of the tariff. It has been discussed herein above, at length that the sole grievance of the plaintiff revolves around the category of the tariff. Needless to mention that the determination of the tariff falls in the exclusive jurisdiction of the DERC. An appeal from the order of the DERC lies to the Appellate Tribunal U/s 111 of the Act and a further appeal against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal lies to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
29. Furthermore, this is not the case of the plaintiff that it has not participated in the internal mechanism as provided under the Electricity Act, 2003. Filing of the various representations by the plaintiff association with the defendant and the DERC and the consequent rejection thereof, irresistibly leads to the conclusion that fundamental fairness of the procedure has not been violated and the plaintiff has actively resorted to the internal mechanism as provided under the Electricity Act, 2003. I have no hesitation to hold that the remedy available to the plaintiff has been provided U/s 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
30. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, I have no hesitation Page no. 27 of 28 to hold that the suit is not maintainable before this Court and the plaint is liable to be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. As a result, I hereby allow the present application of the defendant U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and reject the plaint being not maintainable before this Court.
31. Since, the plaint has been rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court cannot pass any orders on the injunction application of the plaintiff as the injunction application of the plaintiff does not survive any more. Interim orders dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court stand vacated.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR) Court today i.e. 16.08.2014. ADJ-17 (Central), THC, Delhi Page no. 28 of 28