IMPORTANT POINT
The Electricity Act, 2003 is a complete code that bars the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in disputes regarding provisional assessments under Section 126.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) has come up with the present writ petition, questioning the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in entertaining a dispute in respect of a provisional assessment of electricity charges.

2. The facts for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:

Respondents 1 and 2 are the consumers of the petitioner. Based on Ext.P1 site mahazar, the Assessing Officer issued a provisional bill to the tune of Rs.2,05,938/-in terms of provisions contained under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said provisional bill was challenged by the 1st respondent before the 3rd respondent – Permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by filing O.P.No.122 of 2014, Ext.P3.

3. According to the 1st respondent, various electrical gadgets were not connected at the time of inspection and hence, the calculation made was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners appeared and filed their objection, contending mainly that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 complaint.

4. The 3rd respondent – the Permanent Lok Adalat, however, overruled the said objection and proceeded to consider the case on merits and passed Ext.P6 award. Thus, the petitioner KSEB, aggrieved by the said award, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard Sri.Riji Rajendran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner -KSEB and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submitted that provisions contained under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, which is a complete code by itself, provide the mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the consumer. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Therefore, when the Statute ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, necessarily the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot entertain the application under Section 22C of the Act for considering the dispute raised by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the provisional assessment bill. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Executive Engineer & anr. v. M/s.Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (Civil Appeal No.8859 of 2011) to contend for the proposition that the Electricity Act is a complete code by itself and therefore, the consumer will have to necessarily invoke the provisions of the Electricity Act for redressal of the grievances. He further relied on the judgment dated 28.03.2024 of the Orissa High Court in Executive Engineer, (Electrical) South v. Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam (W.P(C)No.6962 of 2015) to contend for the proposition that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not competent to maintain an application under Section 22 of the Act against the redressal of the grievances under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra), the learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that the Supreme Court has also clarified the aforesaid provisions.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that their application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was perfectly maintainable. He would also rely on the definition of 'Public Utility Service' as defined under the provisions of the Act, to contend for the proposition that the application filed before the 3rd respondent was perfectly maintainable. Alternatively, it is also contended that in case this Court finds that the 3rd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, respondents 1 and 2 be given liberty to object to the provisional assessment bill since the complaint was entertained and decided in their