Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 869
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
North Delhi Power Limited (Now Known as Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) – Appellant
Versus
Devinder Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 20842 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 6883 of 2017)
Decided On : 04-12-2017
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bilal Khan, Adv. Mr. Himanshu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): None.
The Special Electricity Court, set up under the Electricity Act, does not have jurisdiction over civil suits and acts as a Court of Sessions for trying offences under the Act.
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Jurisdiction of Special Electricity Court - The court held that the Special Electricity Court, set up to try offences under the Electricity Act, acts as a Court of Sessions and does not have jurisdiction over civil suits. Therefore, the impugned judgment was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
A civil suit was filed by the respondents seeking a declaration that the transfer of an electricity bill to the plaintiff is illegal and an injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity for non-payment of the bill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Electricity Court, set up under the Electricity Act, does not have jurisdiction over civil suits and acts as a Court of Sessions for trying offences under the Act.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Special Electricity Court over civil suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant sections of the Electricity Act and concluded that the Special Electricity Court does not have jurisdiction over civil suits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
ORDER
Leave granted
2. A civil Suit, being CS No.51 of 2011, was filed by the respondents herein praying for a declaration that the act of the transfer of an electricity bill to the plaintiff is illegal, together with an injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity of the plaintiff for non-payment of the bill in question. The Special Electricity Court, vide its order dated 19th December, 2011 referred to Sections 138 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and then dismissed an application made under Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the Special Electricity Court set up under the Act would have jurisdiction to decide the suit in question.
3. In CM(M) No.451/2012, by the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2016, the High Court of Delhi referred to its own previous judgment, and to Section 138 of the Act and dismissed the CM(M) No.451/2012. The North Delhi Power Limited – the appellant before us – has argued that the Special Court set up under Section 153 of the Act is a Court that exclusively deals with criminal matters and, that therefore, a Civil Suit cannot be filed before this Court.
4. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
5. Part XV of the Act deals with the Constitution of Special Courts. Section 153 states that this is for the purpose of providing for speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act. The procedure and power of the Special Court is laid down under Section 154 of the Act, including the power to levy a penalty which is referred as “civil liability” under Section 154(5) and 154(6) of the Act. Section 155 states that the Special Court is to have the powers of a Court of Sessions, and Section 157 of the Act vests the Special Court with a power of Review. Under Section 156 of the Act, appeals and revisions that are available against the Court of Sessions and that are provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can also be availed of.
6. It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid sections that the Special Electricity Court acts as a Court of Sessions and has been set up to try offences that are committed under the Act. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that a civil suit would be within the jurisdiction of such Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
7. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
