Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
L.PREMCHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent
Electricity - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Electricity Act 2003 - Sections 145, 126 - The court emphasized the express statutory bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, which denies Civil Courts jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding assessment disputes, thereby affirming previous judgments that necessitate exhausting statutory remedies before approaching civil courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff challenged a demand for payment by the Electricity Board for a low power factor, seeking a declaration of illegality. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable as per the Electricity Act, 2003, and the plaintiff had not exhausted available legal remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, establishing that the suit was not maintainable under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, which expressly bars civil jurisdiction over such disputes. The demand was based on prior assessments that the plaintiff did not challenge through the appropriate legal channels.
Issues: Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the Electricity Board's demand for payment is maintainable under the jurisdictional provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The decisive point was that Section 145 of the Electricity Act explicitly prohibits civil courts from entertaining suits that question assessments made by the Electricity Board, reinforcing the requirement for plaintiffs to pursue statutory remedies first.
Final Decision: The second appeal is dismissed, confirming that the suit is not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit challenging the demand of the defendant / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is before this Court on the above appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2011 passed in AS.No.57 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 passed in OS.No.117 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. According to the plaintiff, he had an Hotel under the name and style “Hotel KTR” in Thiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore-2. When he was running the hotel, on 15.10.2007, the defendant / Electricity Department issued a communication stating low power factor. The defendant issued a letter dated 01.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,16,639/- payable for the low power factor and since it is illegal, has come up with the suit to declare the demand as illegal and for injunction.
4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to maintain the suit questioning the assessment.
5. The plaintiff, without exhausting the remedies available in that Act, cannot maintain the suit. Further, the omission of the demand and collection of the said sum of Rs.1,16,639/- was also pointed out in the audit, based on which the demand notice was issued.
6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A.10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 were marked.
7. The Trial court after appreciating the evidence and documents by judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011, dismissed the suit holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, in view of the specific bar under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred, as 'the said Act'.) The plaintiff being aggrieved filed AS.57 of 2011 and the Lower Appellate Court after reappraising the evidence dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.
8. This Court by order dated 02.07.2012, ordered notice regarding admission.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the demand made by the defendants/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was illegal and they have rightly approached the Civil Court challenging the demand whereby, the plaintiff will have an opportunity to let in evidence and establish his claim.
10. The learned counsel vehemently contended that further the demand made by the Electricity Board is beyond the period of limitation and therefore is not maintainable. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable when the demand is not based on the theft of electricity.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the short levy of energy was deducted, based on which the demand was issued. The learned counsel further argued that after assessing the correct consumption, the demand for a sum of Rs.1,16,639/- was issued towards the short billed amount.
12. The learned counsel further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 145 of the said Act. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit for proceeding in respect of the assessment. The learned counsel further contended that when the assessment is made under Section 126 of the said Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the specific bar under the Act, and both the courts below have rightly found that the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit which needs no interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
14. As per Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, in a Civil suit, the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
