UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM Vs. HARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short but important question of law that falls for consideration of this court in the instant writ petition is, whether the civil court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') for determining any issue arising under Section 56 of the Act is barred or it would be restricted only qua the issues arising out of any order passed under Sections 126 and 127 of the Act.

(2.) FACTS first. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.12.2012 (Annexure P -1), passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Naraingarh, whereby the learned Civil Judge issued direction to the petitioner to restore the electric connection, subject to deposit of an amount of 40% of bill amount by the plaintiff within 15 days. The impugned order came to be passed by the learned Civil Judge in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in the suit for declaration. The suit was filed by the present respondent challenging the action of the petitioner, disconnecting his electric supply in alleged default of payment of electricity charges. The respondent alleged that the electricity bill (Annexure P -2) raised by the petitioner was inflated and faulty, thus, illegal. He also challenged the order (Annexure P -3) disconnecting his electric supply. Details in this regard find mentioned in the plaint (Annexure P -4). Petitioner filed its written statement (Annexure P -5), wherein it did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, as such. It is pertinent to note here that respondent, as per his allegations levelled in the plaint (Annexure P -4), had been consuming electricity for domestic purposes and the electric bill raised was for Rs.79745/ - on account of alleged arrears. In this factual background of the matter, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is a misconceived writ petition, wherein no interference is warranted at the hands of this court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.