Court reaffirmed that the civil courts have no jurisdiction in matters where Section 145 bars such jurisdiction, following its own Division Bench precedent. This judgment upholds prior interpretation, offering binding authority for electricity sector disputes on jurisdictional exclusions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2767/2022 of UTTARI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM PUNDRI AND ANOTHER Vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED |
| CNR | PHHC010322802022 |
| Date of Registration | 14-12-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | NIDHI GUPTA, J. |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single (NIDHI GUPTA, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench judgment in RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another, 14.05.2025) |
| Type of Law | Electricity Law / Civil procedure – Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether civil court jurisdiction is barred in view of Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | RSA-4181-2016, Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another, Division Bench, 14.05.2025 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment relied upon the express bar in Section 145 of the Electricity Act and conformity with binding Division Bench authority of the same High Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The case involved a suit for declaration and injunction by the respondent/plaintiff decreed by both lower courts in their favour. The primary legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable in view of Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003. The appellants contended the court’s jurisdiction was barred; no representation was made for the respondent at hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, potentially the Supreme Court, and electricity-sector disputes elsewhere in India |
| Follows | Division Bench judgment in RSA-4181-2016, Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another (14.05.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Re-emphasises that Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003, bars civil court jurisdiction in disputes covered by the Act.
- Dismissal of suits for lack of jurisdiction is mandatory where the statutory bar applies, regardless of merits.
- Any findings or evidence or observations in judgments passed without jurisdiction do not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.
- Plaintiffs are expressly permitted to seek alternate statutory remedies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The only substantial question of law before the court was whether Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003, bars the jurisdiction of civil courts.
- Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Division Bench of the same High Court had already adjudicated this question in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another (RSA-4181-2016).
- The High Court adopted the reasoning and holding of the Division Bench, expressly relying on the precedent.
- In consequence, the civil suit was dismissed solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction under Section 145.
- The High Court made it clear that any evidence recorded or observations made in the trial and first appellate court would not bar fresh consideration in future proceedings, as res judicata would not apply for lack of jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The only question of law involved is whether civil court’s jurisdiction is barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- This question has already been conclusively decided by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another.
- Based on this, the present appeal should be allowed and the suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Respondent
- None represented at the hearing; no submissions recorded.
Factual Background
The appellant-defendants are electricity distribution entities contesting a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kaithal). Both the trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In second appeal, the key legal issue was whether civil court jurisdiction was barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent was unrepresented during the hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was directly analyzed: it bars jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where authorities under the Act have conclusive jurisdiction.
- The court followed a strict/express interpretation, applying the bar as provided by Parliament.
- No constitutional provisions or other sections analyzed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions; single judge, unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- Judgment clarifies that any evidence or findings from the trial or first appellate court (passed without jurisdiction) will not operate as res judicata in subsequent statutory proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed existing Division Bench precedent.