1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2009 IN SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.246 OF 2008 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., ..Applicants V/s Shri Ramnath Indradev Yadav & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Satish Kamat with D.S.Sakhalkar for the applicants. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the respondent nos.1 to 3. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 15th October, 2009. PC 1 This is an application made by the original defendants against the rejection of their application for dismissing the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same as per the provisions of section 145, 153 and 154(3) of the Electricity Act. The plaintiff has filed the suit challenging an electricity bill which is served upon him. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was involved in theft of electricity and under such circumstances, the bill has been issued. It is the contention of the defendants that after the theft, FIR came to be lodged against the plaintiff and the matter is pending before the Special Court which has now been appointed. Though the application for dismissing the plaintiff’s suit is not annexed, yet from the order it is evident that the bar as claimed by the defendants was under Section 153, 154(3) & (5). In so far as bar under Section 154 is concerned, it is seen that the same relates to entertaining the 2 suit or proceedings in respect of which an assessment officer under Section 126 or an appellate authority under Section 127 or an adjudicating officer under this Act is empowered to entertain. Under Section 126 an assessing officer has been given powers to make provisional assessment on coming to a conclusion that such person is indulging in un- authorised use of electricity. The term un-authorised use of electricity is defined under section 126 (6-B) and includes usage of electricity through a tampered meter. It is the case of the defendants that plaintiff was indulging in theft of electricity by tampering the meter. Admittedly, no provisional assessment has been made. It is not known therefore, as to how the bill amount has been arrived at. According to the Advocate for the defendants the bill amount has been arrived at under Section 135(1-A). Section 135 (1-A) does not relate to the issue of bill. A reference to section 153 and 155(5) is mis-placed. It is true that under Section 155(5), Special Court has powers to determine civil liability. Admittedly, no such civil liability has yet been decided by the Special Court. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri B.L.Kantroo V/s. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., That judgment proceeds to decide a question as to whether on the facts of that case, Civil Court was barred under Section 145. The facts of this case clearly are not covered under Section 126 because there is no provisional assessment by the Assessment officer. In my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Hence, Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3