Sonu v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & ORS

RSA No.1682 of 2017 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1682 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:01.04.2019 Sonu ... Appellant Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present appeal is directed at the instance of the appellantplaintiff against the concurrent findings of fact and law, whereby the suit claiming declaration challenging the notice bearing No.1530 dated 11.06.2012, imposing the penalty of `1,47,370/-, has been dismissed on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the 2003 Act'), the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction. For the sake of brevity, the provisions of Section 145 of the 2003 Act read as under:- ''145. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.

- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.

RSA No.1682 of 2017 (O&M) {2} conferred by or under this Act.''

During the course of arguments, Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that instead of arguing on merits of the case, he may be granted liberty to avail the remedy as per the provisions of the 2003 Act.

Concededly, the appellant-plaintiff was charged with unauthorized use of electricity and no FIR has been registered as per the provisions of Section 135 of 2003 Act.

I am in full agreement with the aforementioned request of Mr. Naresh Kumar and would deem it appropriate that in case any application challenging the aforementioned demand is filed within a period of one month from today, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay by taking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the competent authority shall decide the application by taking into consideration the bona fides of the appellant. In view of the aforementioned observations, the regular second appeal is disposed of with the liberty granted above as the Civil Court was not having jurisdiction to try and entertain the relief sought in the suit. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 01, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.03 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh