Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 308 (RAJ)

Phulya @ Phool Chand Meena v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur

2011-02-09

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT : Narendre Kumar Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court against defendants challenging the raising of so-called illegal demand of Rs. 41,411/- in the electricity bill for the month of April, 2004 and threatening to disconnect the electricity connection from the well situated in his field. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed five issues. Issue No. 2 was about not raising dispute before Re-Conciliation Committee and presentation of suit in the trial court directly. Trial court came to a conclusion that in view of Sections 126 and 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. Other issues were also decided on merits. Trial court ultimately dismissed the suit. First appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, but the same was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that when Issue No. 2 regarding jurisdiction of civil court was decided against the plaintiff, then suit should not have been decided on merits and either suit should have been returned to the plaintiff for presentation before appropriate authority or a liberty should have been granted to the plaintiff to approach appropriate authority for his grievance in accordance with law. In these circumstances, although both the courts below have dismissed the appellant's suit, but at least a liberty may be granted to plaintiff-appellant to raise his grievance before appropriate forum as per provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the reasons assigned by learned courts below with regard to all the issues, particularly Issue No. 2, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet, in case a liberty is granted to plaintiff-appellant to raise his grievance before appropriate forum as per provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, in the same matter for which the suit was filed. 6. In view of above, second appeal is disposed off with liberty to the plaintiff-appellant to raise his grievance about electricity bill for the month of April, 2004 before appropriate officer/authority as per provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. 7. 6. In view of above, second appeal is disposed off with liberty to the plaintiff-appellant to raise his grievance about electricity bill for the month of April, 2004 before appropriate officer/authority as per provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. 7. It is needless to mention that since Issue No. 2 was decided holding that jurisdiction of civil court is barred, therefore, the said authority/officer will decide the dispute raised by the appellant in accordance with law independently and without being influenced by judgment dated 06.08.2009 passed by District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and judgment dated 28.05.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur.