RSA No.622 of 2010(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.622 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2010. Pohap Singh .……Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No.1761-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 44 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main Case This is second appeal by plaintiff-Pohap Singh, who was successful in the trial Court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate Court. Plaintiff filed suit against Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and its Chairman (respondents) alleging that the plaintiff does not hold any electricity connection nor he has any tubewell. There is no privity of contract between the parties. The defendants, however, served notice dated 27.01.2004 on the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.30,000/- as penalty for allegedly committing theft of electricity. The said notice has been challenged in the suit. RSA No.622 of 2010(O & M) -2- The defendants pleaded inter alia that on 24.01.2004, authorized officer of the defendants checked the premises of the plaintiff and found the plaintiff committing theft of electricity by directly tapping the L.T. Line of respondents. Connected load was of 7.5 BHP during peak hours. The plaintiff was found running tubewell by committing theft of electricity. In view of said checking report, impugned demand notice imposing penalty of Rs.30,000/- was served on the plaintiff. The said notice is legal and justified. It was also pleaded that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Various other objections were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 06.11.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendant No.1 has been allowed by learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.2009 holding that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and, therefore, civil suit is not maintainable. Accordingly suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant very emphatically and repeatedly contended that the plaintiff being not consumer of the defendants, jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred as provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, the Act) would not be applicable to the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. Section 145 of the Act bars jurisdiction of Civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding RSA No.622 of 2010(O & M) -3- in respect of any matter which an Assessing Officer under Section 126 or Appellate Authority under Section 127 or Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act is empowered to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Section 126 of the Act provides that if on inspection of any place, premises or equipments etc., the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that any person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. Section 126 of the Act, therefore, does not lay down that assessment under this provision can be made only in respect of consumer who has obtained electricity connection from the electricity supplier. On the other hand, Section 126 refers to unauthorized use of electricity by any person, whether consumer or not. Consequently, Section 145 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of assessment of charges regarding unauthorized use of electricity, be it by the consumer or some other person. Consequently, in the instant case, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff was not holding any electricity connection from the defendants, jurisdiction of civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 145 of the Act, as the plaintiff was allegedly using electricity in unauthorized manner and proceedings for the same were taken against him under Section 126 of the Act. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that jurisdiction of the RSA No.622 of 2010(O & M) -4- Civil Court to try the suit is barred. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.05.2010. A. Kaundal