Holding

A civil suit for injunction against recovery of electricity charges is not maintainable; the consumer must first avail the remedies provided under the Electricity Acts and the Board’s instructions, and the appeal is allowed with payment in instalments.

Summary

The Punjab State Electricity Board supplied electricity to Ashwani Kumar, later issuing a bill of Rs.1,90,498.79 for the period Dec 1983‑Jan 1985. Kumar filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Board from recovering the amount. The trial court decreed in his favour, an appeal upheld the decree, and a second appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the suit was not maintainable because the Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Board’s own procedural instructions provide exclusive remedies, and aggrieved parties must first avail those remedies and may approach the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree, allowed the appeal, and directed Kumar to pay the amount in six monthly instalments, with a provision for refund with interest if he succeeds on appeal. The decision emphasizes the primacy of statutory and departmental remedies over civil litigation in electricity billing disputes.

Issues considered

Whether a civil suit for permanent injunction against recovery of electricity charges is maintainable when specific statutory remedies exist under the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
Whether the consumer must first exhaust departmental remedies before approaching civil courts.
Whether the court can order payment of the disputed amount in instalments and provide for refund with interest upon successful appeal.

Legislation cited

Subjects

electricityarrears of electricity chargesinjunctionstatutory remedyconsumer protectioncivil procedureinstalment paymentrefund with interestArticle 226

Judgment

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. A
v.
ASHWANI KUMAR

MARCH 14, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Electricity Act, 1910/Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 :

Arrears of electricity charges-Recovery of-<:onsumer filing civil suit
for permanent injunction restraining the Board from recovering the C
amount-Suit decreed-Decree confirmed by High Court in second ap-
peal-Held the civil court shall not be justified in entertaining the suit and
giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy
provided under the Indian Electricity Act the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act
and in accordance with the instrnctions issued by the Board in that behalf
from time to time-If the consumer is not satisfied with the order passed by D
the Board/Appellate Authority, he can avail of the remedy available under
Article 226 of the Constituti01t-By necessary implication the suit is not
maintainable-The consumer is at liberty to file appeaHlowever, he would
pay the amount in demand in six monthly instalments-If he succeeds, Board
shall refund the amount with interest. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2507 of
1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.92 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1865 of 1991. F
R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants.

Ms. Arnita Gupta for the Respondent.
.. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

The appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, made on December 9, 1992 in R.S.A. No. 1865
of 1991. The appellant-Board had given connection of supply of electrical H
1143
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A energy to the respondent on January 16, 1983. Since the meter installed
was suspected to have been tampered with it was removed on May 6, 1984.
On an application made by the respondent, a new meter was installed on
may, 9, 1984. On March 18, 1985 Bill No. 44 for Rs. 1,90,498.79 for the
period December 1983 to January 16, 1985 was sent to the respondent.
Feding aggrieved, the respondent filed the Civil Snit No. 85 of 1985 on
B March 25, 1985 for permanent injunction, restraining the Board or its
Officers from collecting and recovering the amount from the respondent.
The Sub-Judge on September 16, 1987 granted the decree. On appeal, it
was confirmed and the second appeal has been dismissed. Thus, this appeal
by special leave petition.
c
On July 19, 1996 when the matter came up for hearing, this Court
passed an order observing that Section 4, Instruction 115 (1) ('?) of th.e
sales manual which is placed on record, indicates the procedure to be
followed when the meter was found to be accurate, but the reading was
D inaccurate. Instruction relating the procedure to be followed for resolving
the dispute was not made part of the record and, therefore, time was
granted to the appellant to produce the necessary record in that behalf. In
fortherance thereof, the record has been placed on record.

E Now, it is clear that the Electricity Board itself has issued Circulars
from time to time in that behalf. Circular No. 111/80, dated December 20,
1980, was issued in partial modification of the earlier Circulars No. 151179
<lated 21.2.1979 and No. 4723/cadre dated 24.7 .1980. Therein it states that
the Flying Squads/Enforcement Staff shall henceforth prepare their report
in respect of checking of the defaulting premises of the delinquent con-
F sumers and serve the requisite notice to the consumer at site itself with a
copy to S.D.O./D.S. concerned. Thereafter, the Flying Squad shall not
revise their findings or the quantum of penalty already intimated. Cases of
default of payment upto Rs. 5,000/- arc reviewabk by the Superintending

G
Engineer/D .S. and the cases of default beyond Rs. 5,000/- arc revicwable
by C.E. or D.S. concerned. Subsequently, instructions were issued under
-
Order No. 427 <lated November 26, 1981 stating that the negotiations with
the consumers or withdrawal of cases from the court or the arbitration
proceedings or faulty meter cases may be taken by the Committee consist-
ing of (1) Chief Engineer (D.S. concerned); (2) Chief Accounts Officer or
H Chief Auditor as may be decided by the Member, finance; (3) Legal
PB. STATE ELECTRICITY BD. v. ASHWANI KR. 1145

Advisor; (4)Director, Commercial. The above committee shall exercise the A·
power upto Rs. 5;0001- in each case and decide all the cases including those
pending in the court, except enforcement of the waiving.

Subsequently, further Circular No. 111 of 1984 dated December 5,
1984 was issued reiterating the powers of the Flying Squads given in earlier. B
circulars in para 2(i) and para 2(ii). The Flying Squads/Enforcement staff
shall not revise their findings or the quantum of compensation already
intimated. Under Clause (iii) it provides for the following authorities to
review the compensation amount once intimated to the consumer:
-
(a) Cases upto Rs. l0,000 -- S.E./D.S. c
(b) Cases beyond Rs. l0,000 & upto Rs. 5 -- C.E./D.S.
lacs.
(c) Cases beyond Rs. 5 lacs (the cases shall -- Member (T)
be put up by C.E./Commercial through
Director/Enforcement). D

Clause (v) postulates that where the consumer himself accepts the
findings of the Flying Squads and makes the payment of compenGation
amount, such cases shall not later on be subject matter of review by the
D.S. officers. E

Clause (vi) provides that notwithstanding the fact that the D.S.
Officers agree or disagree with the findings of Flying Squads, but if the
consumer protests against the charges, the review, appeal of such a con-
sumer shall be registered by S.D.O./D.S. concerned and forwarded to the
reviewing authority through proper channel. The proper channels have
F
been noted in the subsequent sub-paragraph of paragraph (vi). Para (vii)
indicates that every effort shall be made by the reviewing authority to
ensure that the review appeal is decided with in the stipulated period of
disconnection; where it is not possible to do so, the consumer shall be
asked by the reviewing authority to deposit at least 75% of the amount of G
compensation under protest so that supply could be restored, after the
expiry of stipulated period of disconnection. Where a consumer does not
come forward to deposit the amount so worked out in the manner as
stipulated above, the supply shall not be restored till finalisation of the
review/appeal. H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A The position was subsequently reviewed under Circular No. 26 of
1989 dated August 7, 1989. Therein, it is postulated that the Committee
shall be headed by the concerned Superintending Engineer/D.S. and shall
have the following members:-

1. S.E. /D.S. Chairman of the Committee.
B
2. 2. XEN/DS concerned. Member Convenor.
---- -
3. XEN/Enforcement. Member (for cases involving
checking by Enforcement start).
4. A.0.0./Ficld. Member
-
c 5. Representative of Indu:>try. Member

It is further provided that the Committee shall have powers to review and
decide all cases for recovery waiving off the irrecoverable amount upto Rs.
30,000/- in. each case. This Committee shall decide all disputed cases
D including the cases arising out of enforcement checking. This Committee
shall act on the basis of general fairness and equity and not necessarily by
the rigid department instructions. It would, thus, be seen that these
statutory rules issued by the Board intended to dispose of the disputes
expeditiously without undue delay, so that the consumer may not be
subjected to hardship due to diconnection or non-payment of the amount
E charged, as demanded under the rules, for long period. At the same time
the Board is also entitled to recover the amount expeditiously from the
consumer, so that the Board functions efficiently and effectively and also
supplies the electrical energy to the consumer without any inconvenience
to the consumer as non-supply of electrical energy hampers the progress
F of the industry, etc.

The question then arises: whether the Civil Court would be justified
in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as
contended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were
raised in the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the
G same given up. Section 9 of C.P.C. provides that Civil Court shall try all
suits of Civil nature, sjlbject to peculiar jurisdiction, unless their cognizance
is expressly or hy necessary implication is barred. Such_ suit would not be
maintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to
go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamen-
H tal fairness of procedure has been violated. The .statutory circulars ad um-
PB. STATE ELECTIUCITYBD. v. ASHWANI KR. 1147

berated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has A
been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implica- ·
tions, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a conse-
quence, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and
giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy
provided under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supp- B
ly) Act and the Instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time
to time as stated above.

Shri Goyal has contended that the authorities do not hear the parties,
nor give reasoned order. Therefore, the parties cannot be precluded to
avail of the remedy of a suit. We cannot accept such a broad and c
generalised proposition. When the provision for appeal by way of review
has been provided by the statutory instructions, and the parties are directed
to avail of the remedy, the authorities are enjoined to consider all the
objections raised by the consumer and to pass, after consideration, the
reasoned order in that behalf, so that the aggrieved consumer, if not D
satisfied with the order passed by the Board/appellate authority, can avail
of the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore,
by necessary implication, the appropriate competent authority should hear
the parties, consider their objections and pass the reasoned order, either
accepting or negativing the claim. Of course it is not like a judgment of a E
civil court. It is then contended that the respondent has been subjected to
pay huge amount of bill in a short period; hence, it is a rase for i11te1fere11ce.
We find no force in the contention. May be that due to the advice given
by the counsel, the respondent obviously has availed of the remedy of the
suit, instead of departmental appeal. In our view, by necessary implication
the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the respondent is at liberty to avail
F
the remedy of appe<il within six weeks from today and raise the factual
objections before the Board and the Board/appellate authority would
consider and dispose of them, as indicated earlier, on merits.

It is next contended that the respondent has been charged huge G
amount. It would be difficult for him to pay the amount in lump sum.
Therefore, he may be given permission to pay the amount in instalments.
We find that the request is genuine and in view of long lapse of time, we
direct that the respondent would pay the amount in demand in six monthly
instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before April 5, 1997. In H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R. i
A case he succeeds in appeal or in the proceedings, the Board shall refund
the amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum from the date
of deposit.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without
costs.
B
R.P. Appeal allowed.

--