RANBAXY LABORATORIES Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Firstly some background. "

(2.) The above questions have been referred for the decision of the larger Bench by one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) when the argument was raised sitting singly that the scheme of redressal of grievance through Dispute Settlement Committee does not impliedly or expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Court to try all suits of civil nature is very expansive. It is only where cognizance of a suit is specifically barred by statute either expressly or impliedly, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be ousted to entertain the suit. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Kamla Mills Limited v. State of Bombay, AIR 1965 SC 1942 as well as other judgments reported in M. P. S. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Vijay Timber Company, 1997 (1) SCC 68 : (AIR 1997 SC 2364); Shankaranarayan Potti (dead) by LRs. v. K. Sreedevi, 1998 (3) SCC 751 : (AIR 1998 SC 1808); State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kanta Rao (dead) by LRs., AIR 2000 SC 2220 and Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh, 2002 (6) SCC 416 : (AIR 2002 SC 2841. By relying on such judgments, it was contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be barred only by statute and not by way of Regulations framed under the statute. The subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the Central Act. On the other hand, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as "the Board") that the Dispute Settlement Committee had been established in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board under S. 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. FACTS

(3.) The brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for declaration challenging the demand raised by the defendants to pay an additional amount of Rs. 17,60,006/- or to face disconnection. The said amount have been claimed on account of alleged slow running of the meter. One of the issues which was framed by the learned trial Court was issue No. 2-A which reads as under :