SUBE SINGH Vs. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration to the effect that the penalty of Rs.30,160/- was erroneously imposed on him, has been dismissed by both the courts.

(2.) On a perusal of the findings returned by the first appellate court in para 9 of the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2003, it is evident that the appellant has been non-suited on two counts. Firstly, the courts have taken the view that in terms of the rules framed under the Indian Electricity Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted and secondly, the appellant has not deposited 40% of the amount outstanding against him, therefore, also his suit could not be entertained on merits.

(3.) As far as the first ground taken against the appellant is concerned, Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, (2004-2) PLR 101 wherein it was held that since under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, no alternative dispute settlement mechanism was established, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be held to have been ousted. As regards the second reasoning, Learned Counsel for the appellant undertakes that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit 40% of the outstanding dues as on date. Learned Counsel for the respondents has taken a fair stand that in case of deposit of 40% of the amount outstanding, he will have no objection if the appellant's suit is re-adjudicated by the courts below in accordance with law.