Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY, RAMA RAO
A.P.S.E.B - Appellant
Versus
C.Subhadramrna - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 97 of 1983
Decided On : 02-10-83
Advocates Appeared :
.
HELD: A statute, either expressly or by necessary Implication, may bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court In respect of a particular matter. But the mere conferment with special jurisdiction on a Tribunal, an authority created under a Statute in respect of the matters enumerated there under providing certain remedies may not by in self necessarily ex-clued the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with a case brought before it in respect of those matters covered by the said statute. In its absence the general presumption is that there must be a remedy available to the citizen In the ordinary courts to claim relief against the act or order or Proceeding impugned, causing detriment to his right as illegal, ultra vires or even otherwise not binding on him. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Courts will not be lightly assumed unless the relevant statute contains in clear and unmistakable terms, express provision to that effect or on a fair reading of all the relevant provisions there under lead to such an inference.
Electricity (Supply) Act (LIX of 1948)-Section 49 read with Section 79-Pilferage of electrical energy detected-Show cause notice issued Civil suit not maintainable against the show cause notice.
HELD: Where the authority or the Tribunal constituted under a particular statute has been given exclusive jussive jurisdiction in respect of the specific matter or subject to try or decide exclusively for in self, even in such cases, the nature and character of the Tribunal constituted, the nature of jurisdiction conferred the circumstances enumerated in the statute conferring such jurisdiction are to be examined. If the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is dependent upon the existence of a particular state of facts and the Tribunal or the authority constitution assumes the existence at such state of facts, and then proceeds to make an enquiry, in such an event it is necessary to find the propose of the statute. its general scheme take in conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted to the Tribunal set up and the other relevant factors.
The Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine the case in which the authority has made an order which is not within his competence or authority to impose the liability or is unconstitutional or the order is alleged to be mollified. A Civil suit to obtain the relief s on the aforesaid grounds is certainly available.
Where a liability is created under a particular statute and the remedy is also provided by creating a forum therein to work out the rights and to ventilate the grievance of an injured party the liability not being pre-existing at common law it has to be worked out only under the forum provided under the statute. To that extent the remedy.
( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State electricity Board and its suberdinites are the appellants. The respondents laid the action in the suit for a that the notice dated 18-4-1974 demanding them to pay a sum of rs. 5,295/- is neither valid nor binding on them and for a consequantial mandatory injunction for restoration of the supply of electricity.
( 2 ) THE allegations made in support thereof are that they are consumers of electrical energy to their rice mil! at Gopalapuram under Category V. and its consumer No. is 5804. They entered into an agreement with the appellants for the supply of electrical energy. The respondents never committed default in the payment of charges for the electricity consumed as per the meter card. On 19-10-72, the second appellant made a surprise visit to their mill premises and inspected the meter and found to be intact. On a subsequent visit made in November, 1973, it was noticed that the meter was burnt out due to defect in the supply of electrical energy by the appellants. They immediately reported to the subordinates of the appellants. They came and took away the meter and installed a new meter. But surprisingly they received the suit notice dated 18-4 1974 containing all false allegations and stating that the appellants pilfered electrical energy and estimated its loss in a sum of Rs. 10, 470 - towards the value of the alleged pilferage. The said assessment has no basis and the demand to pay a sum of rs. 5,295/- as a condition for recon- nection is unwarranted. The failure to pay resulted in disconnection. As a consequence the respondents suffered a loss at Rs. 100/- per day. The respondents reserved their right to file a separate suit for damages, but sought at present the aforestated reliefs.
( 3 ) THE claim was resisted by the appellants contending inter alia, thus: it is a fact that the respondents a partnership concern entered into an agreement with the appellants for the supply of electrical energy under Consumer no. 5804, to run the rice mil! at gopalapuram. On 23-12-1971, the second appellant inspected for the first time and put his seal on the hinges of the box and obtained the signature of one Subbarao, their clerk, representing the respondents and the driver present thereat which reflected in his report ex. B-3 of the even date. On October 19,1973, he inspected again in the presence of one Krishna Murthy, a partner of the respondents, Subbarao and the driver of the mill. He noticed in this inspection that the door hinges in the screws of the box are in very loose condition and partly in open conditions. When he pressed the screws they came out easily. At the right side corner of the meter, at the gasket portion, he found a gap existing and a part of the gascut was found cut. He had shown those defects and recorded a statement in their presence and a report ex. B-2. Ex. B-1 is the separate statement obtained from Sri Krishnamurthy, a partner. He tightened the screws of the box hinges and provided an additional seal to the terminal cover of the box- hinges. Due to Andhra agitation, he could not take immediate action. Under ex. B-4 letter dated 1-4-73 he received a complaint from the respondents that the meter was screeping and was to replace, to which reply was given under. B-5 dated 2-7-73 asking the respondents to send the meter for M. R. T. Test.
( 4 ) D. W. 3, a Junior Engineer, on succeeding D. W. 1, inspected the village on 18. 7. 73 along with meter change slip ex. B-6. He tested the meter and found that (1) on the top and right M. R. T. R2 security seals, ceiling were cut and; hanging (2) a paper seal throughout the meter between top and bottom of the meter cover signed by the Assistant engineer, D. P. E. . Rajahmundry is available; (3) After opening the paper seal; gasket portion right side found cut and came out. Left and right side found cut and came out. Left and right side of the meter gap existing in between the bottom and top. He also found internal scratches on th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
