R.S.A. No. 2267 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2267 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:-13.12.2011 Prem Kumar ...Appellant Versus Chairman Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Power House Panchkula and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. RITU BAHRI J. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that memo No.1909 dated 16.5.2006 asking the plaintiff to deposit Rs.20,000/- as penalty and stating that M&T seal was tampered and the supply of electricity was shown as non-domestic, is wrong, against the law and facts. After receiving the memo plaintiff moved an application to the respondent/defendant No.3 and thereafter Balwan Singh checked the meter and found M&T seal OK. He found that the electricity was being used in the house and was not used for any commercial purpose. The notice was issued and the report given by Krishan Lal AFM, Sher Singh R.S.A. No. 2267 of 2010 -2- ALM and Jagdish Line-man was wrong. The plaintiff did not tamper with the meter, so, he was not liable to pay any penalty. The trial Court after considering all the facts and evidence allowed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 12.2.2009. The finding was given by the trial Court that the checking report (Ex.D2) was not correct. There was no shop near the house of the plaintiff, hence, there was no question of supply for non- domestic purpose. The report (Ex.P7/A) gave a specific finding that M&T seals seems to be OK. No FIR was lodged by the defendants. The appeal filed by the Electricity Board has been allowed. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The main ground in the appeal was that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Section 145 of the Act. The plaintiff could file an objection under Section 126 of the Act against the receipt of memo (Ex.P1) and report (Ex.D2). After the objections were decided, he was further remedy to file the appeal under Section 127 of the Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. versus Jai Jagdambey Steel Pvt. Ltd. and another 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 75 has examined the provisions of Electricity Act and has come to the conclusion that once the provisions have been initiated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act then the Civil Court under Section 145 of the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit of proceedings in respect thereof. The notice (Ex.P1) was sent to R.S.A. No. 2267 of 2010 -3- the plaintiff after inspection report (Ex.D2) was conducted. This is the requirement of Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act for making an assessment after inspection of the premises. Section 126 (1) of the Act is reproduced as under:- “126. Assessment – (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised 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 benefitted by such use.” As per notice of assessment dated 16.5.2006 (Ex.P1) the plaintiff was asked to deposit Rs.37,126/-, the option was given for the plaintiff to deposit Rs.20,000/- within three days to compound the offence. This notice was issued after receipt of the checking report (Ex.D2). Instead of filing the objections as contemplated under Section 126(3) of the Act the plaintiff filed a civil suit. Under Section 145 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Section 145 of the Act is reproduced as under :- “145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer R.S.A. No. 2267 of 2010 -4- referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act 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 this Act.” The impugned judgment dated 23.11.2009 does not suffer from any irregularity and calls for no interference in view of the law settled by this Court. No question of law much-less substantial question of law arises for adjudication. The regular second appeal is dismissed. 13.12.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE