Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others vs Santosh Devi

Muttaci Jeyapaul, J.

C.M. No. 7616-C of 2014

For the reasons set out in the application, the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

C.M. No. 7617-C of 2014

Dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that the main appeal has been disposed of.

R.S.A. No. 3280 of 2014

The penalty imposed by the defendants Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. on the plaintiff Smt. Santosh Devi was under challenge in the suit. Both the Courts have having held that the defendants were not entitled to Impose the penalty of Rs. 53,463/- on the plaintiff as it was not factually established that there was theft of electricity which was the genesis for imposition of penalty decreed the suit. The Courts below also held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the suit filed by the plaintiff.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that the penalty was imposed on the plaintiffs only on the basis of detection of theft committed by the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff had no legal basis to challenge the penalty imposed upon her by the defendants. It is also submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Firstly, I find that Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes a bar on the Civil Court to entertain a suit only in respect of a matter which an Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 is empowered to determine the issues. The subject assessment in the instant case had been made based on the commission of theft detected by the officials under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. For such an assessment made under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which imposes a bar on the Civil Court does not have any application. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with the present suit laid by the plaintiff.

The defendants had not led any evidence to establish the commission of theft which was the genesis for the assessment leading to imposition of penalty. Therefore, on facts the Courts below have rightly held that there was no basis for imposing penalty by the defendants. I find that no substantial question of law as arisen for determination. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.