High Court
Case Details
RSA-2716-2025 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 117 (cid:1) Dakshin Haryana RSA-2716 Date of De 2716-2025 (O&M) e of Decision:11.08.2025 aryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and and another ... Appellants Mahabir and ano d another ... Respondents Versus (cid:1) CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) C.M No.9423-C C of 2025 The instant application has been The been filed under Section 5 of t of the Limitation Act, 1 Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of lay of 31 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the appl For e application, the same is allowed a wed and delay of 31 days doned. days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2716 of 716 of 2025 (O&M) 1.
Legal Reasoning
The defendants are the appellants The llants before this Court challenging t ging the judgment and de nd decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by ssed by the learned trial Court decreei ecreeing the suit for decla declaration and permanent injunction on filed by the respondents-plainti plaintiffs and the judgmen gment dated 02.04.2025 passed by th by the learned 1st Appellate Court vi ourt vide which the appea appeal preferred by them against th inst the aforesaid judgment and decr d decree passed by the lea the learned trial Court, has been dismis dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that the respo In b respondents-plaintiffs had filed the the suit for declaration to tion to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29 Rs.2,29,569/- added in the electricity ricity bill for the month of nth of July 2016 is illegal, null and ll and void and that they are entitled ntitled to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 2025 (O&M) -2- deposit the curre current bill. A decree of permanent anent injunction had also been soug n sought against the appe appellants-defendants to restrain the in them from recovering the impugn mpugned amount of Rs.2 Rs.2,29,569/- and from disconnect onnecting the electricity supply of t y of the respondents-plain plaintiff. Respondent No.1/plaintif laintiff No.1 had constructed a godow godown for storing vegeta vegetables and fruits and took an elec an electricity connection bearing accou account No.CC-21/0283 /0283 in NDS category with sanctio sanctioned load of 10 KWs from t from the defendants. Resp Respondent No.2/Plaintiff No.2 ha .2 had taken the said godown on re on rent from plaintiff N tiff No.1 and used the same for sto for storing bananas. It was stated th ated that plaintiff No.2 2 was regularly depositing the en the energy bills and nothing remain remained outstanding agai g against him. Plaintiff No.2 had 2 had received the electricity bill bill of Rs.3,14,505/- for for the month of July 2016 where wherein Rs.2,29,569/- were charged arged as sundry charges. rges. It has been stated that the said e said amount has been charged in ed in an illegal manner as ner as there was nothing outstanding anding against plaintiff No.2. No noti notice prior to addition dition of the sum of Rs.2,29,569/- in the bill of July 2016 as sund s sundry charges was issu as issued. On receipt of the said bill, bill, plaintiff No.2 visited the office office of appellants-defend defendants and asked for the details o etails of amount added in the bill for ll for the month of July 2 ly 2016 but he was not supplied plied with the requisite details. Bei s. Being aggrieved by afo by afore-mentioned factual scenario, nario, the present suit was filed by t d by the plaintiffs. 3. The suit was contested by the defe The e defendants by filing written stateme tatement and raising pre preliminary objections qua main maintainability, cause of action a tion and suppression of m n of material. However, it was adm s admitted that plaintiff No.2 used the premises of plain f plaintiff No.1. It was conceded tha ed that bill to the tune of Rs.3,14,50 14,505/- was sent to plain plaintiff No.2 wherein the sum of Rs. of Rs.2,29,569/- were charged as sund s sundry charges. The rest he rest of the submissions as made in t de in the plaint were denied. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 2025 (O&M) -3- 4. On the basis of pleadings, seven is On ven issues were framed by the learn learned trial Court inclu including the issue of relief. Plain Plaintiffs examined three witnesses esses in support of his ca his case and tendered documents Ex. ts Ex.PA to Ex.PC. On the other han er hand, defendants exam examined two witnesses. 5. On appreciation of oral as well docu On a ll documentary evidence placed before before it, the learned trial trial Court decreed the suit to the e the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29,56 ,29,569/- added as sundry c undry charges in the bill of June, 2016 , 2016 is illegal and further restrained t ained the defendants from from recovering said amount from the om the plaintiffs and from disconnecti nnecting electricity supply supply of plaintiffs on account of non of non-payment of said amount. Appe Appeal preferred by the y the defendants against the aforesai oresaid judgment and decree before t efore the learned 1st Appe Appellate Court also stands dismis dismissed. Hence, the regular seco r second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Lear nts submits that jurisdiction of t n of the Civil Court is ba t is barred under Section 145 of the of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinaf reinafter referred to as the as the Act of 2003) for specific matt c matters delineated under Sections 1 ions 126 and 127 and act nd actions taken or proposed to be t o be taken under the Act of 2003. 003. To buttress his argum s arguments, he relies upon the judgm judgment passed by a Division Bench Bench of this Court in Ma Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Division isional Officer and another 2025 ( 025 (3) RCR (Civil) 303. 303. Both the courts below withou without examining the issue whether due procedure was fo was followed by the assessing author authority or not under the Act of 200 of 2003, treated the assess assessment made by the authority as rity as an arbitrary action. Furthermo hermore, issues No.3 to 6 3 to 6 have wrongly been decided cided by the learned trial Court as n rt as not pressed. The issu e issue of jurisdiction can be raised raised at any stage. Therefore, prays f prays for setting aside of t e of the impugned judgments and dec nd decrees passed by the learned Cou d Courts below. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 2025 (O&M) -4- 7. 8. Heard. Hea This Court has no hesitation in acc This in accepting the argument raised by t d by the learned counsel nsel for the appellants that jurisdic urisdiction of the Civil Court is barr is barred under Section 14 ion 145 of the Act of 2003 and the is the issue qua jurisdiction can be rais be raised even at the appel appellate stage. As per Section 145 o n 145 of the Act of 2003, Civil Court h ourt has no jurisdiction tion to entertain suits or proceedings edings arising from actions taken und en under Sections 126 and 26 and 127 of the Act ibid. Section 12 tion 126 talks about assessment that if that if on inspection of any of any place or premises or after insp r inspection of the equipments, gadge gadgets, machines, devic devices found connected or used, used, or after inspection of recor records maintained by an by any person, the assessing officer icer comes to the conclusion that su at such person is indulgi ulging in unauthorized use of electr lectricity, he shall provisionally asse assess to the best of his f his judgment the electricity charges rges payable by such person or by a by any other person ben benefited by such use. Therefore, f fore, first of all, there should be a rep a report by the assessing ssing officer concluding that a person person was indulged in an unauthoriz thorized use of electricity tricity and then, there should be prov e provisional assessment with respect espect to electricity charge charges payable by such person. In n. In the present case, there is no su no such report of the asse he assessing officer available on recor record that there was unauthorized u rized use of electricity and ity and accordingly, a provisional ass assessment was made. The charg charges levied are mere merely sundry charges. Furthem urthemore, such order of provision ovisional assessment ough t ought to be served upon the person erson in occupation or possession or ion or in charges of the pla the place or premises in such manner a anner as may be prescribed. Admitted mittedly, no such order rder of provisional assessment wa was served upon the responden ondents- plaintiffs. Agai Against the provisional assessment, ment, objections are to be called for a d for and after providing a ding a reasonable opportunity of heari f hearing to such person, a final order order of assessment is pa t is passed. At no stage, case of the of the appellants-defendants before t efore the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 2025 (O&M) -5- learned Courts b urts below was that the amount levie t levied upon the respondents-plainti plaintiffs was levied under under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 f 2003 after following the due procedu ocedure. The onus to pro to prove that the charges levied upo d upon the respondents-plaintiffs we iffs were under Section 12 tion 126 of the Act of 2003 after fol ter following due procedure was on t s on the appellants-defend defendants, which they failed to disc o discharge. Thus, the judgment reli nt relied upon by learned
Legal Reasoning
arned counsel for the appellants in Ma Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra) is n ra) is not applicable to the to the facts of the present case. 9.
Decision
In view of the above, this Court fin In v finds no illegality and irregularity ularity in the judgments a ents and decrees passed by both the th the Courts below and the same a same are upheld, much les uch less, no substantial question of la n of law arises for consideration in t n in the present appeal. C eal. Consequently, the instant regular missed. egular second appeal stands dismissed 10. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2025 August 11, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh