Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the original suits, filed four separate suits (O.S. Nos. 613/2013, 612/2013, 610/2013, and 611/2013) before the Trial Court against Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (MESCOM) and its Assistant Executive Engineer. The dispute pertained to electricity connections provided to a premises known as Mizaz Complex in Pandeshwar, Mangaluru. The appellants contended that the premises had been gifted to one of the plaintiffs, and electricity connection had been obtained under tariff LT-2(a). However, a tenant was running a ladies hostel in the premises. On 16.07.2013, officials from MESCOM inspected the premises and determined that the applicable tariff should be LT-3 instead of LT-2(a). Consequently, demand notices were issued raising back billing claims for differential tariff and fixed charges, along with a penalty, and threatening disconnection if not paid within the stipulated time. The appellants filed objections to these notices and subsequently instituted the suits seeking a declaration that the demand notices were null and void and unenforceable, and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply. The respondents contested the suits, asserting that the tariff reclassification and back billing were lawful and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Trial Court framed issues including whether the demand notices were in accordance with norms, whether they were null and void, entitlement to injunction, and specifically, whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. After trial, the court answered all issues in the negative and the additional issue on jurisdiction in the affirmative, holding that Section 145 of the Electricity Act barred the civil court’s jurisdiction, and dismissed the suits. The appellants filed regular appeals before the First Appellate Court, which considered similar points and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that the suits were not maintainable. The First Appellate Court also dismissed an application for additional evidence. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the appellants filed the present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that both courts below misconstrued the law and ignored a prior remand order that had held the civil court had jurisdiction. The High Court heard the appeals together and reserved judgment on 16.10.2025. The text of the judgment as provided remains incomplete, and the final decision of the High Court on the second appeals is not contained in the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003 - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 145 - In suits filed seeking declaration that back billing demand notices issued by MESCOM based on tariff reclassification (LT-2(a) to LT-3) were null and void and for permanent injunction, the Trial Court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits due to the statutory bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and dismissed the suits. The First Appellate Court confirmed this finding, answering the point on jurisdiction in the affirmative and holding that the suits were not maintainable before the civil court. The second appeals before the High Court were heard and reserved for judgment on 16.10.2025. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking declaration that demand notices issued by the electricity supply company are null and void and for permanent prohibitory injunction, given the bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Law Points
- Section 145 of the Electricity Act
- 2003 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts
