The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be impliedly barred in terms of S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on the scheme framed under S. 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. Firstly some background. "

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be said to be impliedly barred in terms of S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of a scheme framed under S. 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ?

2. Whether the judgment in Ashwani Kumars case (Judgments Today 1997 (5) SCC 182) is to be followed in view of earlier and later judgments of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, especially when larger Bench judgments have not been brought to the notice of the Court?

2. The above questions have been referred for the decision of the larger Bench by one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) when the argument was raised sitting singly that the scheme of redressal of grievance through Dispute Settlement Committee does not impliedly or expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Court to try all suits of civil nature is very expansive. It is only where cognizance of a suit is specifically barred by statute either expressly or impliedly, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be ousted to entertain the suit. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Kamla Mills Limited V/s. State of Bombay, AIR 1965 SC 1942 as well as other judgments reported in M. P. S. Electricity Board, Jabalpur V/s. Vijay Timber Company, 1997 (1) SCC 68 : (AIR 1997 SC 2364); Shankaranarayan Potti (dead) by LRs. V/s. K. Sreedevi, 1998 (3) SCC 751 : (AIR 1998 SC 1808); State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Manjeti Laxmi Kanta Rao (dead) by LRs., AIR 2000 SC 2220 and Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh, 2002 (6) SCC 416 : (AIR 2002 SC 2841. By relying on such judgments, it was contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be barred only by statute and not by way of Regulations framed under the statute. The subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the Central Act. On the other hand, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as "the Board") that the Dispute Settlement Committee had been established in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board under S. 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. FACTS

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for declaration challenging the demand raised by the defendants to pay an additional amount of Rs. 17,60,006/- or to face disconnection. The said amount have been claimed on account of alleged slow running of the meter. One of the issues which was framed by the learned trial Court was issue No. 2-A which reads as under :

"2-A. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Settlement Dispute Committee for the redressal of its grievance and as such the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred on this point and the suit is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement?"

OPD

4 The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed holding that the Civil Court is not justified in entertaining such type of suits and giving the declaration without directing the parties to avail of the remedy under the Act and the instructions issued by the Board. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 182. The appeal against the said order was dismissed again holding that the suit before the Civil Court is not maintainable. ARGUMENTS

5. Shri. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the Board cannot create Dispute Settlement Committee to adjudicate upon the disputes between the consumers and the Board as there is no statutory provision under which such Dispute Settlement Committee could be established. Reliance was placed upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Company V/s. Kerala State Electricity Board, AIR 1975 SC 1967 wh