The central legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

1. By this common order, all the three petitions are being disposed of together.

2. The only point of controversy involved for adjudication in these petitions, all filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relates to the ouster of jurisdiction of a Civil Court as was claimed by the petitioner in the Civil Suits filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Brief facts first.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for claiming damages and compensation against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the ground that while laying transmission lines and erection of other structures, damage was caused to the property, movable as well as immovable of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Various disputed questions of fact arose in the aforesaid suits, namely, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 asserting the factum of damage suffered by him and claiming a particular sum of money and the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 disputing the factum of damage or the extent of such damage as also disputing and denying its liability to pay the claimed amount of damages and compensation.

4. In the course of proceedings in the aforesaid suit the defendants raised a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. This objection has based upon and arose out of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The defendants placing reliance upon this Section contended before the learned Civil Court that a combined reading of Section 67 and Section 86 of Electricity Act, 2003 showed that the jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate upon a claim for damages and compensation vested exclusively in the appropriate Commission constituted under the Act and therefore, the Civil Courts jurisdiction was barred. Reliance was placed upon some provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned Court below has rejected the aforesaid objection of the petitioner and held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred.

5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Clause (e) thereof as well as sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 67, in addition to Section 86 of the Act to contend that by necessary implication the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred because the aforesaid provisions of 2003 Act vested exclusive jurisdiction in the appropriate Commission. He also relied upon Section 173 and Section 174 of the aforesaid Act in support of the aforesaid submission.

6. The relevant extract (for our purposes) of Section 67 is reproduced hereinbelow. It reads thus :- "67. Provision as to opening up of streets, railways, etc. ................................ (2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this behalf, specify,- (e) the determination and payment of compensation or rent to the persons affected by works under this section; (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute including amount or compensation under sub-section (3) arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (5) The Appropriate Commission, while determining any difference or dispute arising under this section in addition to any compensation under sub-section (3) may impose a penalty not exceeding the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section."

7. Even though Section 67 (2) (e) talks of determination as well as payment of compensation and sub-section (3) of Section 67 stipulates that the licensee is liable to make full compensation for any damage suffered. It is sub-section (4) of Section 67, which says that where any dispute or difference arises w