Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act only for matters arising from Section 126; consumers can invoke Civil Court for disputes involving Section 135 liabilities.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since a common question of law is involved in all the cases (supra), therefore, the said question of law is amenable to be answered through a common verdict being made thereons.

2. For brevity, the facts are being taken from RSA No. 4181 of 2016

3. Initially, a civil suit bearing RBT No. 31 of 2011, became preferred by plaintiff-Mahesh Kumar in the Court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jind, seeking a declaration, thus for declaring, as illegal, null and void rather the checking report dated 17.11.2011, as well as Memo No. 872/CA dated 22.11.2011, and Memo No 876/CA dated 22.11.2011, wherebys became respectively assessed amounts of Rs. 2,93,628/ and Rs. 90,000/-, thus towards penalty and compounding of offence against account No DB21-1605(CS) of the plaintiff therein.

4. It is averred in the supra suit that the plaintiff is the consumer of the defenedant concerned, and, has been regularly paying the consumption bills and nothing is due towards him. It is further averred that the checking report dated 17.11.2011, was not prepared at the site, but became prepared in the office of the defendant concerned, and, the person, who had signed the alleged checking report, did not disclose his/her designation. The plaintiff did not commit any theft of energy and the checking report also does not speak about any theft of energy. It is further averred that the subsequent memo No. 872/CA dated 22.11.2011, wherebys Rs. 2,93,268/- became assessed as penalty, is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff was not heard before the issuance of the aforesaid notice, and, the mandatory provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, were not complied with.

5. Furthermore, it is averred that as per the checking report dated 17.11.2011, the meter load though as alleged, though not admitted, was 0.746 KW, and, which allegedly became unauthorizedly used, whereas, the amount has been assessed on 9 KW, which was illegal, because as per the checking report only 0.746 KW load was unauthorized and the amount has to be assessed on that meter load only. In addition, it is averred that Memo No. 876/CA dated 22.11.2011, wherebys an amount of Rs. 90,000/- has been assessed for the compounding of the relevant offence, was also illegal, as under Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’), the defendants concerned, cannot compel the plaintiff to deposit the above amount. Hence, the present suit.

6. The said suit became contested by the defendants concerned by filing their written statement(s).

7. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, the following issues became struck by the learned lower Court concerned:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration to the effect that checking report dated 17.11.2011 and memo No. 872/CA dated 22.11.2011 and memo No. 876/CA dated 22.11.2011 are wrong, illegal, null and void and are liable to be set aside ? OPP

(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting his electric connection of plaintiff and making recovery of the impugned amount forcibly ? OPP

(iii) Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts ? OPD

(vi) Whether the plaintiff has not cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

(vii) Relief.”

8. The learned lower Court concerned, on 28.2.2013, after considerin