A civil court can adjudicate claims regarding actions taken beyond statutory powers under the Electricity Act, affirming jurisdiction where consent was not obtained for electric lines across private property.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

Kerala State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer who were the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff and 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are defendants 1 and 4.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit originally against three defendants. The 1^st defendant is having property on the western side of the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and his siblings. The plaint schedule property is 13.12 Ares, belonging to the plaintiff, which is situated on the immediate northern side of G.K.Pilla lane. The property of the 1^st defendant is also situated on the immediate northern side of G.K.Pilla lane. Originally, there was an electric post on the immediate southern side of the plaint schedule property on the side of G.K.Pilla lane. Defendants 2 and 3 drew an electric line from the said post to the new house of the 1^st defendant, installing two posts inside the eastern boundary of the property of the 1^st defendant along with the western boundary of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 have drawn an electric line crossing the plaint schedule property at the southern portion to the new house of the 1^st defendant without the consent of the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that due to the drawing of the electric line, the plaintiff’s property became useless. Shifting of electric line from the property of the plaintiff is absolutely necessary. There is sufficient property for the 1st defendant to draw the electric line. Defendants 2 and 3 are preparing to draw a line in continuation of the existing line drawn through the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff. The defendants are to be restrained from doing so. On these allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the electric line which is drawn through the plaint schedule property and also along the side of the plaint schedule property to the 1^st defendant’s property and to draw the same without causing any disturbance to the plaintiff.

4. The 1st defendant filed a Written Statement opposing the suit prayers, contending, inter alia, that the electric line is not drawn across the property of the plaintiff. The jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding drawing of electric line is vested with the Additional District Magistrate. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions sought for. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The 1^st defendant sold 25 cents from the northern part of his property to one Haris, and the plaintiff filed the present suit with false allegations about when the electric line was to be drawn to the property given to Haris.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a Written Statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable as the prayer is for the removal of the electric line near and in the plaint schedule property. As per Section 42 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, it is mandatory for a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated, and economical distribution system in the area, the failure of which will invite penal provisions. Section 67 of the ELECTRICITY ACT is an enabling provision to take action to fulfill the said objective. As per S.67(4), the authority is specified to consider the dispute involved in this case. Section 145 specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. Since other co- owners are not parties, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The allegation that the defendants have drawn an electric line across the property of the plaintiff is false. The electric line is drawn along the private road owned by the 1^st defendant, and no damage is caused to any object or tree of the plaintiff. The plaintiff made a request to shift the electric line to the other side of the private road, and the 1^st defendant considered the request and inquired about the willingness of the 1^st defendant, and as the