AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMESH D DEVNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, the petitioner has challenged the order dated in Civil Suit no. 1917 of 2004 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, mainly on the ground that the Ahmedabad City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, especially in view of section 145 thereof and has also prayed to quash and set aside the order below application exh. 15 in Civil Suit no. 1917 of 2004 passed by the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the above civil suit has been preferred by the respondent for a declaration that the action of the petitioner of disconnection of electricity of the respondent(original plaintiff) bearing customer service no. 927337 of Naranpura zone, is illegal, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and for getting a direction against the petitioner for immediate reconnection of electricity connection of the respondent-plaintiff. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reply was filed to the suit as well as to the injunction application by the petitioner company before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad wherein it was pointed out that the premises of the respondent was checked by the officers of the petitioner company and it was found that there was a theft of electricity in DP box, lead seal simple plyet press and lighting meter terminal cover as well as PVC seal were found disturbed. The terminal was open and it was found in the box that there is an extra black colour wire used for phase to phase link. By the aforesaid irregularity, it is found that the respondent had used "phase to phase link by one additional extra black colour wire so that without getting recorded consumption of electricity in the meter, the petitioner can get uninterrupted supply of electricity. Because of the aforesaid facts, the meter was sealed and was taken to the laboratory. Photographs of the aforesaid meter were also produced alongwith reply of the suit as well as injunction application before the trial court and the same has also been produced before this court at page 48 onwards at Annexure "C" collectively. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately a checking report was issued to the opponent and the same is produced at page 53 of the memo of the petition. In fact, electricity connection has not been given to the respondent. Nonetheless, the respondent is using the electricity connection. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter assessment of theft of electricity was also given to the respondent which is at Rs 64,962/-. The respondent thereafter, filed a civil suit and the trial court passed the following order:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that when there are provisions which oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, especially under section 145 of the Electricity Act, the trial court ought not to have passed an order. In view of the aforesaid facts and the clear position of law, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil suit filed by the respondent being Regular Civil Suit no. 1907 of 2004 is not tenable at law and hence, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.