The High Court reaffirmed that, in light of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and established Division Bench precedent, civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain suits relating to matters covered by the Act. This binding judgment upholds and applies existing precedent, specifically impacting electricity-related legal disputes and guiding future litigation strategy.
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 within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench judgment in RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another) |
| Type of Law | Electricity Act, 2003—Jurisdiction of Civil Court |
| Questions of Law | Whether Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars civil court jurisdiction over disputes under the Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the law settled by the Division Bench in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another”, the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred for matters covered by the Act. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as not maintainable. The respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to avail of any other appropriate statutory remedy as may be available under the law. Observations in the impugned judgments will not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | RSA-4181-2016, Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another, decided on 14.05.2025 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The present Regular Second Appeal was filed by the defendant against concurrent judgments of the lower courts granting the plaintiff declaration and permanent injunction. The sole legal issue was the maintainability of the suit in light of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Division Bench in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another (RSA-4181-2016, decided 14.05.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and affirms that civil courts do not have jurisdiction in matters covered by the Electricity Act, 2003, as per Section 145.
- Civil suits on electricity disputes are not maintainable; parties must resort to statutory remedies under the Electricity Act.
- Refers to and applies the Division Bench ruling in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another as binding precedent.
- Observations made by courts below will not operate as res judicata if the plaintiff initiates subsequent proceedings under available statutory remedies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The High Court, relying on the submissions of the appellant’s counsel, framed the sole legal question: whether the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court noted that a Division Bench of the same High Court had already settled this issue in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another” (RSA-4181-2016, decided 14.05.2025), holding that civil courts have no jurisdiction in such disputes. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The court clarified the plaintiff could seek appropriate remedy under the law, and that any findings in the lower court’s judgments would not bind future proceedings (no res judicata).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Defendant):
- The key question of law is whether Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, bars the jurisdiction of civil courts.
- The issue has already been decided by the Division Bench in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another” wherein civil court’s jurisdiction was held to be barred.
Factual Background
The appeal was brought by the Executive Engineer, challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts which decreed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The only substantive ground raised before the High Court was that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in light of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, a proposition already settled by a Division Bench of the same court.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter that an assessing officer or appellate authority under the Act is empowered to determine. The interpretation reaffirmed the exclusive statutory remedy under the Act, excluding the civil court’s jurisdiction in such disputes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Division Bench judgment in “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another” applied.
Citations
- RSA-4181-2016, “Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Another”, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, decided on 14.05.2025.