JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2002 and the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Meerut.
3. An injunction suit was instituted against the U.P. Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) restraining them from interfering with the normal functioning of the plaintiffs power loom. An electricity connection No. 38749 was sanctioned for a load of 10.670 horse power. The plaintiff pleaded that the meter no. 5902 installed at the premises of the plaintiff was not tampered and the enforcement force of the Corporation had found the seal of the meter intact. The relief claimed was for injunction against the Corporation and to restrain the Corporation from recovery of amount of Rs. 1,19,497/- for the period commencing from 21.12.1994 to 22.1.1995 and also not to realize on the basis of the average reading recorded between the aforesaid period. The further relief sought was that the Corporation be restrained from disconnecting the electricity in lieu of the aforesaid recovery.
4. The trial court framed number of issues. Issue no. 4 was on the question as to whether a civil court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute which is subject matter of the suit? Issue no. 1 was as to whether the bill issued by the Corporation for the period 21.12.1994 to 22.1.1995 is correct? Issue no. 4 was whether the suit is barred under Sections 287(A) and 330 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
5. The counsel for the appellant has specifically emphasized on the finding of issue no. 1 which was in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court decided the said issue and came to the conclusion that the assessment made by the defendant respondent was incorrect as there was certain discrepancy between the meter reading and assessment report adduced in evidence. But the issue no. 4 was decided against the plaintiff where the court recorded a clear and categorical finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as raised in the suit. The Corporation specifically stated that in view of Sections 22 and 23 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) any dispute regarding an assessment of the electricity bill and discrepancy in the meter reading can only be raised under Sections 22 and 23 of the aforesaid Regulations. Reliance has been placed on decision in the case of Sunder Singh v. 3rd Additional District Judge Bulandshahr 2001(1) C.L.R. 537 where it is held that only after availing the remedy available under the Regulations and a finding given by the Corporation a suit may be instituted.
6. The trial court held that it has no jurisdiction since there is nothing on record to show that there is any order passed by the Corporation in respect of objection under Section 23 of the Regulations. Another decision which has been made the basis for coming to the conclusion that the civil court has no jurisdiction, is in the case reported as where the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that where there is remedy available under the Electricity Act and the plaintiff fails to avail the said remedy, the civil court cannot assume jurisdiction and, therefore, definite conclusion was arrived at that the trial court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the suit and finally the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. This judgment has been confirmed in appeal and finding arrived at by the trial court was categorically confirmed in appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the decision in the case of State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswami Iver and sons , I have gone through the said judgment. In fact it does not help to the appellant. On the contrary it supports the finding recorded by both the courts below. The Apex Court in the said decision has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court may be excluded expressly or by clear implication arising from the scheme of the Act. Where the Legislature sets up a special tribunal to determine questions relating to rights or liabilities which are the creation of a statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be deemed excluded by implication.
8. The Regulation 22 of the Regulations deals with discontinuance of supply in case of malpractice and pilferage of Electricity and Regulation 23 deals with the Assessment and Appeal.
9. In the instant appeal, the case of the Corporation is regarding tempering of meter and on its basis certain amount was sought to be recovered which was objected by the plaintiff. The Corporation proceeded to discontinue the supply of the electricity on account of alleged pilferage and, therefore, the plaintiff approached the court by filing the instant injunction suit. The aforesaid Regulation provides for assessment and appeal against such order before Executive Engineer who shall finalize all the assessment cases after giving an opportunity to the consumer to state his point of view. The consumer is required to make appeal before the Superintending Engineer, if he is dissatisfied with the assessment so made within a period of 15 days. In the circumstances, it is absolutely clear that the specific regulations have been framed which provide for deciding the dispute such as raised in the instant case. It may also be mentioned that Section 4 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues) Recovery Act also clearly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court till the entire amount is deposited. This deposit is mandatory. Section 4 is given as follows:
Suit to challenge the liability to pay due.- (1) Where a authorized agent, wider Section 3, he may, if he denies his liability to pay the dues or any part thereof and upon deposit thereof with the prescribed authority under protest in writing, institute a suit for the refund of the dues or part thereof so deposited.
(2) The suit referred to in Sub-section (1) may be instituted at any time within six months from the date of deposit with the prescribed authority in the court having jurisdiction, but subject to the result of the suit. The notice of demand shall be conclusive proof of the dues mentioned therein.
10. This Court in another decision in the case of Geeta Pump (Private) Limited v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Ors. has exclusively deals with such situation. Paras 61, 62 and 63 of the said decision are quoted below:
61. If there is any dispute regarding bill, regulation has provided under Regulation 19(5) of 1984 Regulations remedy which is mandatory. In case there is any dispute or discrepancy in the bill, no suit is maintainable as was held in the case of Amitash Textiles v. U.P.S.E.B. 1996(1) HVD 402 Paragraph 12 and 14. Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act provides that no mandatory injunction shall be granted if equally efficacious remedy is otherwise available to the plaintiff as was laid in the case of Snil Kumar v. Ram Prakash Electricity dues being recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the suit restraining the supplier against electricity dues, is not maintainable in view of Section 330(c) of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act unless the entire amount is paid to the supplier, in view of Section 287A of the said Act as was held in the case of Philibhit Ispat (P) Ltd. v. UP. State Electricity Board . In the said case it was held that the consumer is liable to pay even the minimum consumer guaranteed charges under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 following the decision in the case of Bihar S.E.B. v. Green Rubber Industries . In the said case, it was further held that a suit for prohibitory injunction only for restraining the UPSDEB from disconnecting the supply, is not maintainable in the absence of any relief seeking declaration of nonliability, following the decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1995 AWC 443 : 1995 All. L.J. 1517. It was also held in the said decision that an interim order of injunction in respect of dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue without protecting the interest of State electricity Board is illegal and void.
62. Where agreement and rules framed under the Act provides complete remedy, no suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure being impliedly barred as has been held in the case of wherein it was held that Section 9 of C.P.C. provides that Civil Court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by 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 fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, 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 (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above. In our view as a necessary implication, suit is not maintainable." Similar view was expressed in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. N.M. Banka 1997(1) Indian Civil Cases 529(SC).
63. Interruption in supply can be on account of statutory orders of the Government under Section 22B of the India Electricity Act, 1910. No party is empowered to violate the provisions of such government Orders. Violation of such orders is punishable offence under Section 42 of the 18910 Act. Therefore, consumer cannot ask for injunction for uninterrupted supply irrespective of implementation of the Government Order issued under Section 22B of the 1910 Act. The Board is also empowered to impose penalty for such violation. It was so held in the case of Adony Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board .
11. This decision clearly answers all the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that courts below did not commit any illegality whatsoever while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appellant has not been able to raise any substantial question of law worth consideration. In fact, the suit which was not maintainable, was entertained and the findings were recorded on merit after framing issues. The suit should have been dismissed on the question of jurisdiction itself by framing a preliminary issue. In the circumstances, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.