Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Century Rayon Limited, challenged an order dated 28 June 2018 passed by the learned District Judge-4, Kalyan, dismissing its Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.13 of 2018. The appeal arose from an order dated 6 January 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kalyan, granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent no.1, IVP Limited, in Regular Civil Suit No.625 of 2017. The petitioner is the original defendant no.2, and the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are the original defendant nos.1 and 3 respectively. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of chemicals and has a plant at Village Mohane, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The petitioner made an application to the respondent no.2 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited) for a Line In Line Out (LILO) on 100 kV Mohone-Ambernath DC TL for a 100 kV proposed sub-station to supply power from 22 kV line to 100 kV. The respondent no.2 addressed a letter to MSETCL, the transmission authority empowered under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent no.1, IVP Limited, filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the petitioner was interfering with its property rights by laying electric lines without consent. The trial court granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's property. The petitioner appealed, but the District Judge dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The main legal issue was whether the LILO scheme constitutes 'works' under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction. The petitioner argued that the LILO scheme was covered under Section 164 and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The respondent no.1 argued that the LILO scheme did not involve laying of electric lines and that the civil court had jurisdiction. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 164 and held that the LILO scheme does not involve laying of electric lines but only connection to existing lines, and thus is not covered by Section 164. The court further held that the civil court had jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction to protect the respondent's property rights. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Electricity Act - Section 164 - 'Works' - LILO Scheme - The court considered whether a Line In Line Out (LILO) scheme for a 100 kV line falls within the definition of 'works' under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Held that the LILO scheme does not involve laying of electric lines but only connection to existing lines, and thus is not covered by Section 164. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Jurisdiction - The court examined whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. Held that the suit for permanent injunction was maintainable and the trial court correctly granted temporary injunction to protect the respondent's property rights pending disposal. (Paras 16-20) C) Electricity Act - Section 164 - Delegation of Powers - The court noted that the powers under Section 164 are delegated to MSETCL, but the LILO scheme did not involve any exercise of such powers as it did not involve laying of lines. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the LILO scheme proposed by the petitioner constitutes 'laying of electric lines' under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's property.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 28 June 2018 passed by the learned District Judge-4, Kalyan in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.13 of 2018 and the order dated 6 January 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kalyan in Regular Civil Suit No.625 of 2017 are upheld.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'works' under Section 164 of the Electricity Act
- 2003
- LILO scheme not covered
- temporary injunction principles
- maintainability of suit for injunction against electricity licensee
