Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 47 (HP)

H. P. S. E. B. v. PASHUPATI SPINING MILLS LTD.

2003-03-14

V.K.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J.—By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the three petitions together, which had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent being a consumer of electricity from the petitioner Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board had filed suits for injunction against the petitioners in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, inter alia, for injunction and other connected reliefs. During the course of the pendency of the suit, on 15.12.1998 an order was passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, whereby, based on the agreement of the parties, the parties were referred for conciliation proceedings before the Zonal Level Committee constituted by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board for settlement of all disputes between themselves with respect to the peak hour load violation charges. The relevant extract of the order dated 15.12.1998 has been reproduced in paragraph 3 of the petition, which reads thus : "During the course of arguments, efforts were made for settlement between the parties in conciliation. It has been agreed by both the sides during conciliation proceedings that the matter may be referred to dispute settlement Zonal Level Committee, constituted by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, for settlement of all disputes regarding payment of bills between the consumers and the H.P.S.E.B. As the parties have shown their intentions to settle their disputes amicably in conciliation before the above referred committee, therefore, the matter is referred to the said committee. The Committee will look after the entire matter in controversy between both the parties after affording due opportunities of being heard to both the parties and thereafter to submit their decision to this Court within six months after the receipt of entire record of the reference after holding first sitting of the Committee. Photo copies of the entire record of the case be sent to the office of the Zonal Level Committee immediately alongwith a copy of this order. The petitioner undertakes to bear the expenses for preparing photostat copies of the entire record. Civil Ahlmad is directed to do the needful with the assistance of the petitioner within a weeks time. The interim order dated 4.7.1998 issued shall remain in force till the Zonal Committee submits its report. The file be now put up for consideration after the receipt of the report of the Disputes Settlement Zonal Committee, HPSEB. Civil Ahlmad is directed to do the needful with the assistance of the petitioner within a weeks time. The interim order dated 4.7.1998 issued shall remain in force till the Zonal Committee submits its report. The file be now put up for consideration after the receipt of the report of the Disputes Settlement Zonal Committee, HPSEB. In the meantime, the files may be consigned to the records and will be revived on the application of the parties if so desired after the receipt of the report of the Committee if the matter is not finally settled amicably.” 2. While referring the parties to the Zonal Level Committee, the learned trial Court ordered that the interim injunction issued earlier would remain in force and operative till the Zonal Level Committee submitted its report. It is undisputed case of the parties that the Zonal Level Committee decided the dispute between the parties in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. After the Committee had decided the issue in favour of the petitioners, they filed an application before the trial Court for vacation of the earlier interim order, but the petitioners grievance is that neither the trial Court has been disposing of the suits so far, nor has it vacated the earlier interim injunction despite the clear findings by the Committee against the respondent. 3. I have seen the issues framed by the trial Court and find that issues relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, framing of the suit in a particular form and the maintainability of the suit, have been raised by the trial Court but, unfortunately the trial Court has not decided these issues so far despite the fact that these issues go to the very jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as at the very root of the question relating to the maintainability of the suits between the parties. Few things do strike me because my view is that the trial Court should not have passed some orders in this case in the manner it did. Few things do strike me because my view is that the trial Court should not have passed some orders in this case in the manner it did. First of all, if with the agreement of the parties the trial Court had referred the disputes to the Zonal Level Committee for adjudication and settlement, there was no necessity whatsoever in the trial Court retaining the suits on its file because by making reference of disputes to an alternative disputes redressal Forum, the trial Court should have brought the suits to an end. Actually it was not permissible for the trial Court to retain the suits once it had made the aforesaid reference to the committee. Secondly, once the trial Court itself decided and ordered that after the report of the Committee was submitted in the trial Court, the question relating to the continuance of interim injunction would be decided, once the Committee found against the respondent and submitted its Report, the trial Court with promptitude and expedition should have disposed of the application of the petitioners for vacation of the interim injunction. 4. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 120, to urge that the constitution of the Zonal Level Committee in the exercise of its statutory power is an act by which, in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by necessary implication. Even though, Mr. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raised a question relating to the validity of the order constituting the Zonal Level Committee, merely because the parties on their own volition had agreed to subject themselves to the decision of the Zonal Level Committee, it does not now at this stage lie in the mouth of the respondent to turn around and take a stand that either the constitution of the Zonal Level Committee was improper or that the Zonal Level Committee did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate and settle the disputes between the parties. This is more so when admittedly the respondent being aggrieved of the adverse decision of the Committee has challenged the same in an appeal filed before the appellate forum. 5. This is more so when admittedly the respondent being aggrieved of the adverse decision of the Committee has challenged the same in an appeal filed before the appellate forum. 5. The respondent had framed the suit for injunction and had valued it at Rs. 200 by paying a fixed Court fee of Rs. 20. Apparently, on a plain reading of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, it does appear that perhaps the suits were not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and in any event apparently also, it appears that the learned Senior Sub Judge did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suits. I am fortified in this view of the matter by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Arsh Casting Private Ltd. v. H.P. State Electricity Board and others, reported in 2000 (3) Shim. L.C. 257, wherein by referring to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the learned Judge did hold that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the suit should have been valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction in accordance with the value of the subject matter. In the cases before me also apparently what the respondent was trying to do was to challenge its liability to pay the demanded amount, which in any case indisputably ran into more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Senior Sub Judge (more than Rs. 2 lacs in every case). Even though, the respondent was asking for the relief of injunction, in effect and substance. What it was asking for was in the nature of avoiding its liability to pay the aforesaid amounts, or in other words, in the nature of obtaining a decree to the effect that it was not liable to pay the aforesaid amount. Even though the view of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s. Arsh Casting (supra) is that the plaintiff may also be asking for the recovery of the amount, what can be said in the least in our case is that the plaint should have been framed in such a manner so as to ask for a declaration because unless a declaration was given that the plaintiff was not liable to pay the disputed amount, injunction could not have been asked for. In any event, apparently, it does seem that the plaintiff did not value the suits properly for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction because in every such suit, the valuation did depend on and relate to the disputed amount. 6. What is to be thus noted is that the Zonal Level Committee having held against the respondent in its adjudication, the trial Court has not vacated the interim injunction. 7. I am, therefore inclined to disapprove of the manner in which the trial Court has proceeded in the suits. While, therefore, allowing these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, I direct the trial Court to take up all the issues relating to its jurisdiction as well as the form of the plaint and maintainability of the suits and by treating them as preliminary issues, deal with them as early as possible. In the meanwhile, if the respondent deposits with the petitioners, the entire disputed amount (in every suit) relating to Peak Hours Violation charges within four weeks from today, the petitioners shall not take any steps for the recovery of the said amounts, nor disconnect the electric supply but if within this period, the respondent fails to make such deposits, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take coercive steps for the recovery of the amounts in dispute and also to disconnect the electric supply. 8. All the three petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23rd April, 2003. CMPs No. 5 of 2001 and 213 of 2002 in CMPMO No. 3 of 2001, CMP No. 3 of 2001 in CMPMO No. 1 of 2001 and CMP No. 4 of 2001 in CMPMO No. 2 of 2001. 10. In view of the disposal of the main petitions, the present applications shall stand disposed of and interim orders shall stand vacated. Dasti copy on usual terms.