The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms, in line with recent Division Bench authority, that Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 expressly excludes civil court jurisdiction in matters covered by the Act. This decision follows existing precedent, providing binding authority on jurisdictional bar in electricity sector disputes for all subordinate courts within the High Court’s 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; follows Division Bench judgment |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench authority (RSA-4181-2016, Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another) |
| Type of Law | Electricity Laws / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars civil court jurisdiction in electricity-related disputes |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, civil court jurisdiction is expressly barred for matters covered by the Act. The concurrent findings of the courts below, which had decreed the suit for declaration and injunction, were set aside solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court relied on and followed the binding Division Bench decision in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another (RSA-4181-2016, decided 14.05.2025), which had already settled the legal question concerning the jurisdictional bar. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, decided 14.05.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Division Bench precedent |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The defendant/appellant challenged the concurrent decrees of the lower courts in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to an electricity matter. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of civil courts in such disputes, in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. |
| Citations | None specified |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts under the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and electricity sector tribunals or appellate authorities |
| Follows | Division Bench judgment: RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, decided 14.05.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that civil courts lack jurisdiction over electricity matters expressly barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- The Division Bench decision in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another is binding precedent in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- Any orders, evidence, or findings in proceedings conducted without jurisdiction will not operate as res judicata in later proceedings under appropriate forums.
- Plaintiffs are at liberty to pursue remedies available under the Electricity Act and its mechanisms, not before civil courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first took note of the legal issue as to whether civil court jurisdiction is barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for disputes relating to the electricity sector.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that this specific issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of the Court in RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, decided 14.05.2025).
- Without issuing formal notice (to avoid further delay), the Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits, following judicial discipline.
- It was held that in light of the Division Bench’s clear and binding pronouncement, civil courts have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
- The suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, with liberty to the plaintiff to seek appropriate remedies as per law.
- The judgment clarifies that any findings, evidence, or observations made in the earlier proceedings will not operate as res judicata in any subsequent or properly constituted proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Defendant):
- Contended that the principal legal question — the bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — stands finally settled by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another.
- Urged that accordingly, the lower courts’ decrees should be set aside as passed without jurisdiction.
No other submissions by parties recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking declaration and permanent injunction in relation to electricity matters. Both lower courts decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant/appellant challenged these concurrent findings in second appeal, on the ground that the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The matter focused solely on the jurisdictional issue, with no discussion on the merits of the dispute.
Statutory Analysis
Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was the key statutory provision interpreted. The Court held that this section expressly excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts for matters covered by the Act. The judgment indicates a strict interpretation: if the Act provides a remedy, the civil court cannot entertain the dispute.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court dispensed with the issuance of notice of motion at the hearing stage to avoid further delay, deciding the appeal based solely on the legal question already settled by binding precedent.
- The judgment clarifies that findings from prior proceedings conducted without jurisdiction will not bar subsequent remedies via res judicata.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The case expressly follows a recent Division Bench authority, affirming the settled law regarding exclusion of civil courts’ jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Citations
- RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, decided 14.05.2025)
- No SCC/AIR/Neutral citations are provided in the judgment.
- Reportable status: Not specified.