The High Court affirms that, in light of the Division Bench decision in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another,” Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars civil court jurisdiction where applicable; this ruling upholds and applies existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/3040/2025 of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OP UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD ASSANDH DIST KARNAL Vs BALKAR |
| CNR | PHHC011194112025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench decision in RSA-4181-2016 (“Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another”) |
| Type of Law | Electricity Law; Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether civil court jurisdiction is barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that in view of the Division Bench decision in RSA-4181-2016, titled “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another”, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the suit by the respondent-plaintiff is not maintainable. The respondent, however, is at liberty to pursue any other remedy as per law, and no findings or evidence recorded in the impugned judgments will operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another” (Division Bench, RSA-4181-2016, dated 14.05.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Division Bench judgment (RSA-4181-2016) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, which was decreed by the courts below. The defendant/appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court in light of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows | “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another,” Division Bench, RSA-4181-2016 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- This judgment affirms and clarifies that civil court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 where applicable.
- The matter is conclusively settled within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana by reliance on the Division Bench decision in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another.”
- Lawyers should ensure that suits seeking to challenge actions covered by the Electricity Act, 2003 are not instituted before civil courts if Section 145 applies.
- Any evidence or findings from previously dismissed civil proceedings under this principle will not be res judicata in subsequent remedies adopted under proper forums.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant/defendant challenged the maintainability of the civil suit on the ground that the jurisdiction was barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- The Court acknowledged that the legal issue regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts in view of Section 145 was already determined by the Division Bench judgment in RSA-4181-2016, “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another.”
- In applying that Division Bench decision, the High Court held that civil court jurisdiction is indeed barred in such matters.
- Consequently, the decree in favour of the plaintiff by the trial and lower appellate courts was set aside.
- The respondent-plaintiff’s liberty to seek appropriate remedies elsewhere under law was preserved, while any observations or evidence from the prior proceedings would not operate as res judicata.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant
- Contended that the question of law regarding bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had already been decided by the Division Bench in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another.”
- Argued that the civil courts below erred in entertaining and decreeing the suit.
Respondent
No specific arguments of the respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration and consequential relief by way of permanent injunction, which was decreed by the courts below. The appellant-defendant contended that civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and brought a second appeal on this legal ground. Proceedings in the High Court focused exclusively on the maintainability of the suit in light of established precedent.
Statutory Analysis
Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was the central provision under discussion. The Court applied the interpretation provided by the Division Bench in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another,” affirming that this section bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters contemplated therein. No other statutory provision was analyzed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision follows and applies an existing Division Bench precedent.
Citations
- Judgment date: 02.09.2025.
- Division Bench precedent relied: “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another,” RSA-4181-2016, dated 14.05.2025.