A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice B. Pugalendhi rejected a civil revision petition on the basis that the court did not have appropriate jurisdiction to entertain the suit as Section 9 of the CPC would not come into play in view of an effective remedy provided under the special legislation/rules, which were the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 in the present case.
Brief Facts:
According to the petitioner, the first respondent is a Company involved in generating electricity using solar power and they have set up their plant near the petitioner's property. In order to transmit the power generated, the first respondent has erected electric poles in the petitioner's property, without obtaining any permission. Therefore, the petitioner has proposed to file a suit, however, the trial Court has rejected the plaint stating that civil Courts do not have jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].
The petitioner, as plaintiff, had proposed to file a suit before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, seeking a permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, as against the respondents. The learned District Munsif, by order dated 10.06.2022, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, without numbering the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bar as referred to under Section 145 of the Act is only with regard to the issues coming under Section 126 [unauthorized usage of electricity] and Section 127 [appeal remedy] of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is not the case herein. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.
Observations of the Court:
The court acknowledged that the language employed under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is clear and the bar of civil Court's jurisdiction is only with respect to any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act is empowered or to determine under the Act. Section 126 of the Act deals with the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity and Section 127 is the appeal remedy to the assessment order made. A plain reading of Section 145 of the Act shows that a specific restriction is made to matters covered under Sections 126 and 127 alone. This cannot be, in any way, read as a bar to all other types of suits initiated under the Act. The court further held that the case at hand was clearly not a case of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity and therefore, the bar under Section 145 of the Act is not applicable to this case. At the same time, it has to be seen that the remedy against the unauthorized laying of electric poles is provided under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, issued under Section 67(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The court went ahead to analyse that from the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, it can be seen that only after getting prior consent from the land owner, laying of the electricity lines can be done. Even in case of any works already done, the remedy is before the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, who has enough power to stay the process and can even order to remove or alter. It has to be seen that the Rules do not affect the licensees under Section 164 of the Act, which is for the exercise of powers of telegraph authority but, as per the court, this does not apply to the case on hand, as the first respondent herein being a solar power generator seeks to transmit the power generated by way of the electric poles. Therefore, the court noted that the petitioner has a better remedy as contemplated under the Act and in fact, the petitioner would be left remediless only if the suit is entertained.
As per the court, the trial Court rejected the plaint only by referring to Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Though it was not applicable in this case, the suit was still not maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, according to which the civil Court has no jurisdiction not only where the jurisdiction is expressly barred, but also where it is impliedly barred.
Despite of the bar under Section 9 of the CPC, the court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy in the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, issued under Section 67(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides adequate remedy before and after the laying of electric poles. Therefore, the present suit filed for restraining the respondents from laying electric poles and removing the laid electric poles was held to be not maintainable and it was impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since an effective remedy is provided under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, before the District Magistrate or before the Commissioner of Police.
Decision of the Court:
The court failed the civil revision petition and dismissed the same.
Case Title: Rajalakshmi vs M/S Robin Power Solutions and others
Coram: Justice B. Pugalendhi
Case No.: CRP(MD)No.1439 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.D.Malaichamy
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments