Dismissed¶37

P.S.E.B. v. Madan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025RSA/1863/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1863-1993 PSEB Madan Lal theft of electricity M&T seals tampering Flying Squad Khanna supplementary demand penalty ₹13,920 ₹9,320 meter defective Ex. P-2 meter reader consumption units civil court jurisdiction Section 9 CPC Section 145 Electricity Act 2003 Indian Electricity Act 1910 Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 PSEB v. Ashwani Kumar 1997 5 SCC 120 departmental circulars exhaustion of remedy necessary implication procedural fairness natural justice retrospective operation Mahesh Kumar RSA 4181 of 2016 concurrent findings second appeal Punjab Haryana High Court Mandeep Pannu 27.10.2025

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the courts below dated 26.10.1990 and 06.05.1993 affirmed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶37

P.S.E.B. Vs Madan Lal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular Second Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the courts below dated 26.10.1990 and 06.05.1993 affirmed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand of ₹13,920/- is illegal and void? +3 more

¶5

Court's answer

On the question of theft of electricity, this Court finds no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of both courts below that the allegation of dishonest abstraction of energy was not proved on the record.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The demand by way of penalty raised after an overhaul of three years' accounts was illegal, arbitrary and void, and the deposit made by the plaintiff ought to be adjusted.

¶27

Key takeaways

Before the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 contained no express provision barring the jurisdiction of civil courts; exclusion of jurisdiction had therefore to be tested against the general principle in Section 9 CPC that civil courts can try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred.ratio¶28
As per the law declared in PSEB v. Ashwani Kumar (1997 (5) SCC 120), where an effective administrative appellate/review machinery exists under Board circulars, the consumer must first exhaust the departmental remedy; civil-court jurisdiction stands excluded by necessary implication to that extent, but there is no blanket bar — civil-court jurisdiction survives where fundamental procedural fairness is violated or an independent civil right not covered by the Board's procedure is involved.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal by Punjab State Electricity Board against concurrent findings decreeing Madan Lal's suit challenging a supplementary demand of ₹13,920/- raised (memo dated 02.06.1989) after a Flying Squad raid suspected tampering with two M&T seals of his flour-mill meter (1989). Held: (i) theft/dishonest abstraction of energy not proved — the plaintiff had earlier reported the meter defective (Ex. P-2), monthly meter-reader never reported tampering, consumption pattern (about 1,200–1,700 units) was consistent, testing was not done in his presence, and the Flying Squad bypassed the SDO/JE and prescribed procedure; the three-year account-overhaul penalty was illegal, arbitrary and void, and the deposit under protest was to be adjusted. (ii) Jurisdiction: the pre-2003 regime (Indian Electricity Act, 1910; Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948) contained no express civil-court bar; applying PSEB v. Ashwani Kumar (1997 (5) SCC 120), exclusion by necessary implication arises only where an effective departmental remedy exists, and even then civil-court jurisdiction survives where fundamental procedural fairness is violated — as here, the Board's circulars being merely administrative, prospective, and flouted by the Flying Squad. (iii) Mahesh Kumar (RSA No. 4181 of 2016, interpreting Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003) distinguished as wholly inapplicable — the post-2003 bar has no retrospective operation. Appeal dismissed; decrees of 26.10.1990 and 06.05.1993 affirmed.

¶1

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-15.10.2025 Pronounced on : 27.10.2025

¶6

Punjab State El e ctricity Board and Another

¶7

....Appellants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Madan Lal ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶11

Present: M s . Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advoc a te for the appellants. M r . Surinder Garg, Advocate for t h e respondent.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶14

Pr e sent Regular Second Appeal h as been filed by the appella n ts– defendants PS E B and another against the respondent–plaintiff Madan L al, assailing the co n current findings recorded by b oth the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by th e plaintiff–respondent was decr e ed by the learned trial Court v ide judgment and d ecree dated 26.10.1990, which was subsequently affirmed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Sangrur v ide judgment and decree d a ted 06.05.1993.

¶15

Brief Facts

¶16

Br i efly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the e f fect that the demand of ₹13,9 2 0/– raised by the d efendants vide memo dated 0 2 .06.1989 as additional charge s is illegal, arbitra r y and discriminatory, and f u rther sought a direction to the defendants to a d just the said amount which was deposited by him under protest.

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

Th e case set up by the plaintiff w as that he had obtained an ele c tric connection of 2 0 BHP from the defendant–PS E B at Baretta Mandi, and an ele c tric meter was inst a lled in his premises by the Bo a rd. The plaintiff regularly paid the electricity bills issued by the defendants. The meter reader of the PSEB use d to visit the premi s es of the plaintiff every mo n th for recording the reading, and defendant no.2 used to issue bills on the bas i s of such readings. It was fur t her alleged that th e meter reader was also duty b o und to check the operation of the meter and the c ondition of its seals at the ti m e of taking readings. The ave r age monthly consu m ption of the plaintiff was about 1800 units. The Junior Engineer of the defendants a lso used to inspect the meter. I t was further pleaded that the m e ter installed in the p laintiff’s premises was found t o be defective, and accordingly, the plaintiff made a representation to defendant n o .2 for its checking. The said m e ter was checked b y the authorised representative o f defendant no.2, who issued or d ers for its change o n 19.05.1989, having found all seals intact. The meter in ques t ion had been installed in September 1988, and si n ce then had been checked by the meter inspector two or three times. However, o n 31.05.1989, certain officers o f the PSEB, accompanied by police officials, vi s ited the plaintiff’s premises and suspected tamp e ring with two M&T seals of t he meter. Consequently, the m e ter was removed fo r testing and the connection w as disconnected. The defend a nts demanded a su m of ₹9,320/– as penalty in ad d ition to other charges. It was a lso stated by defen d ant no. 2 that the case would be reviewed after testing of the m e ter. The plaintiff, h aving no other option to co n tinue his business, deposited the demanded amo u nt under protest. Thereafter, th e defendants issued notice no. 1 2 56 dated 02.06.19 8 9, raising a supplementary de m and of ₹13,920/– which, accor d ing

¶20

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

to the plaintiff, was wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It was fur t her pleaded that th e re were four M&T seals on the meter and the body of the m e ter could not be r e moved by tampering only tw o seals, which, in fact, were n e ver tampered with. No notice was issued to the p l aintiff for inspection of the m e ter. Hence, the sup p lementary demand raised by the defendants was claimed to be arbitrary and w i thout jurisdiction. 4. In t he written statement filed by t h e defendants, it was submitted t hat the suit was not maintainable and had not been properly valued for the purpose s of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was further pl e aded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to e ntertain the matter and that the plaintiff was estopped by his o wn act and conduc t from filing the suit. On merit s , it was averred that the consu m er was duty boun d to ensure that no seal of th e meter was broken except b y an authorised repr e sentative of the Board. It was a d mitted that the meter reader vis i ted the premises m o nthly and the bills were duly p a id by the plaintiff; however, it w as clarified that th e duty of the meter reader was c onfined to recording readings o n ly. It was further a l leged that on 31.05.1989, the A ssistant Electrical Engineer, Fl y ing Squad, PSEB, K hanna, along with other PSE B officials and police, inspected the plaintiff’s prem i ses and found that all four M& T seals of the meter were tamp e red with. It was, th e refore, a clear case of theft of electrical energy. The connected l o ad was found to be 15.400 KW. The meter was r emoved, sealed in cardboard w ith two paper seals , and checked in the presence o f the plaintiff’s representative, w ho signed the checking report. It was denied that the meter was removed merely for testing purpos e s. The plaintiff, vide applic a tion dated 02.06.1989, expre s sed readiness to de p osit the penalty and accordingl y deposited ₹13,920/–. It was de n ied that the amou n t was paid under protest. T he amount was demanded a fter

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 4 -

¶25

overhauling the account of the plaintiff for a p e riod of three years from the dat e of theft, in accord a nce with the directions issued b y the Flying Squad, PSEB Kha n na. On the request of the plaintiff, his supply wa s restored after the payment of the penalty. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit b e dismissed. 5. Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issue s :

¶26

Whether the demand of ₹13, 9 20/– is illegal and void? OPP

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is enti t led to declaration and injunctio n as pr a yed for? OPP

¶28

Whether the civil Court ha s no jurisdiction to try the pre s ent sui t ? OPD

¶29

Relief.

¶30

Bo t h the parties have led their resp e ctive evidence.

¶31

Findings of the learned trial Court

¶32

Th e trial Court, after examini n g the pleadings, evidence, a nd arguments of b o th sides, held that the plaintiff h ad successfully proved that he h ad made an applic a tion to the PSEB for checkin g and changing the defective m e ter much prior to t h e alleged inspection by the Fly i ng Squad. The records showed t hat the meter was d e fective and orders for its repla c ement had already been issued. 8. Th e Court observed that the Fly i ng Squad conducted the raid and raised a deman d without consulting the conc e rned SDO or Junior Engineer and without verifyi n g the record regarding the de f ective condition of the meter. T he officials failed to produce any report or evid e nce showing that the plaintiff h ad tampered with t he M&T seals. It was also note d that the meter reader, who vis i ted the premises re g ularly, never reported any tamp e ring or irregularity.

¶33

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 5 -

¶35

Th e Court further observed that th e plaintiff’s electricity consump t ion was consistent, ranging between 1200 to 1500 u nits per month, which negated the allegation of th e ft of energy. The testing of the meter was not done in the presence of the plaintiff o r any authorized representative , and the report of the Flying Sq u ad could not be re l ied upon. The Court held that t h e demand raised by the defend a nts by overhauling the plaintiff’s account for three years on the plea of theft of en e rgy was illegal, arbitrary, and void.

¶36

Ac c ordingly, Issue No. 1 was d ecided in favour of the plain t iff, declaring the d e mand of ₹13,920/– as illegal. O n Issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiff was en t itled to the declaration and inj u nction as prayed for. On Issue N o. 3, the Court h e ld that since the demand itse l f was illegal, the civil Court h ad jurisdiction to e ntertain the suit. Consequently, under Issue No. 4 (Relief), the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, directi n g that the amount deposited u n der protest be adjus t ed and the illegal demand be se t aside.

¶37

Findings of learned lower appellate Court

¶38

Th e lower appellate Court, after h earing the arguments of both s i des and examining the record, found no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants–PSE B . The learned counsel for the appellants contended that it w a s a case of theft of energy and that the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were err o neous. However, the appellate C ourt held that this contention w as not supported b y any evidence on record.

¶39

It w as observed that the responden t –plaintiff, who was running a f l our mill (chakki), w as a regular consumer of ele c tricity and had never defaulte d in payment of bill s . The plaintiff had moved an a p plication (Ex. P2) to the PSE B on 27.04.1989 see k ing replacement of a defective meter, and although orders fo r its

¶40

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 6 -

¶42

change were m a de, no action was taken by th e appellants. The Court further h eld that the Flying Squad conducted the raid an d disconnected the supply wit h out consulting the concerned SDO or Junior Engineer, and without verifying the ea r lier complaint or ap p lication of the plaintiff regardi n g the meter’s defectiveness.

¶43

Th e appellate Court also noted that the meter reader visited the premises mont h ly and had never reported any tampering of seals or irregula r ity. Once the plain t iff had formally reported that h is meter was defective, it was the duty of the ele c tricity authorities to get it chec k ed or replaced. Instead, the Fl y ing Squad’s inferen c e of theft was held to be unjust i fied.

¶44

Th e Court observed that the ave r age monthly consumption of the plaintiff ranged between 1200 to 1700 units, w h ich showed a consistent patter n of usage and rule d out any direct or pilfered sup p ly of electricity. Therefore, it w as concluded that t he case was not one of theft or p ilferage of energy, and the pen a lty imposed by the PSEB was illegal and unwarran t ed. 15. Th e findings of the learned trial C o urt on Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 w ere held to be just a nd proper, and were accordingl y affirmed. The appeal was foun d to be without sub s tance and was dismissed, tho u gh without any order as to c o sts, given the pecul i ar circumstances of the case. 16. Fe e ling aggrieved by the above sa i d concurrent findings of the Co u rts below, the pres e nt Regular Second Appeal has b een filed by the appellants–PS E B, which was cont e sted by the respondent–plaintif f .

¶45

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants

¶46

It h as been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings record e d by both the Courts below ar e erroneous, perverse and base d on conjectures and surmises, without properly ap p reciating the documentary and o ral

¶47

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 7 -

¶49

evidence broug h t on record. It is submitted th a t the Courts below have faile d to consider that t h e Flying Squad of the PSE B , along with other officials, h ad conducted an i n spection of the premises of the r espondent on 31.5.1989, and fo u nd that all four M & T seals of the meter were tamp e red with, which clearly constit u ted a case of theft o f electrical energy under the R ules, Instructions and Commercial Circulars of the Board.

¶50

It i s further contended that the low e r Courts have erred in holding t hat the meter reade r was duty bound to check the t ampering of seals. It is argued t hat the duty of the meter reader is only to record the readings, and not to check the tampering or m anipulation of seals. The F lying Squad, during a surp r ise inspection, had detected the tampering, and the meter was checked in the presence of the plaintif f –consumer himself. The plai n tiff had thereafter admitted the pilferage of en e rgy and voluntarily deposited a sum of ₹13,920/- with the B o ard towards penalt y , and hence, no cause of actio n arose in his favour for filing the present suit.

¶51

Th e learned counsel further argued that the findings of both the Co u rts below that the d emand raised by the Board w a s illegal are wholly unsustaina b le. The amount o f penalty was imposed strictl y in accordance with the R u les, Instructions, an d Circulars of the Board, and th e same was lawfully recovered f r om the consumer.

¶52

It is also submitted that the Court s below failed to appreciate that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain s u ch disputes arising out of act s of assessment or d etection of theft of energy by the Electricity Board. The lear n ed counsel relied u pon the judgment of this Cou r t in RSA No. 4181 of 2016, titled Mahesh Kumar versus Sub-Divisional Officer and another, decided on

¶53

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 8 -

¶55

14.05.2025 , w h erein it has been specifically h eld by the Division Bench of t his Court that the j urisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in matters relating to as s essment and imposition of pen a lty for unauthorize d use or theft of electricity.

¶56

He n ce, it is submitted that the fin d ings of both the Courts below are liable to be set a side and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.

¶57

Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent

¶58

Le a rned counsel for the responde n t/plaintiff, on the other hand, has supported the j u dgments and decrees passed b y both the Courts below and arg u ed that the finding s recorded therein are based on p roper appreciation of evidence and do not call fo r any interference by this Co u rt in the present Regular Sec o nd Appeal. It is c o ntended that the allegations o f theft of energy levelled by the appellants were never proved either through co g ent documentary or oral evide n ce, and both the C ourts below have rightly hel d that the demand raised by the appellants was i llegal, arbitrary and without jur i sdiction. 23. It i s further submitted that the ju d gment relied upon by the lear n ed counsel for the appellants, i.e. Mahesh Kumar versus Sub-Divisional Officer and another (RSA No. 4181 of 2016) , has no application to the facts and circumsta n ces of the present c ase. The said case pertains to the bar of jurisdiction of the c ivil Court under Se c tion 145 of the Electricity Act , 2003, whereas the present dis p ute relates to an alleged act of theft of energy that took place in the year 1989, m u ch prior to the co m ing into force of the Electricity A ct, 2003. 24. It i s argued that during the rele v ant period, the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supp l y) Act, 1948 were applicable, and under those en a ctments, no provision existed b arring the jurisdiction of the c ivil

¶59

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 9 -

¶61

Court. Conseq u ently, the civil Court was f ully competent to entertain and adjudicate upo n the dispute.

¶62

Th e learned counsel further subm i ts that both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have, on the basis of e v idence, rightly held that the m e ter was defective, t hat the Flying Squad did not follow proper procedure, and t hat there was no e v idence to prove any dishones t abstraction of energy. Hence, the concurrent find i ngs of fact recorded by the C o urts below are well-reasoned and call for no inter f erence by this Court.

¶63

Findings of this Court

¶64

I h ave carefully considered the respective contentions of the Ld. Counsels for th e parties and gone through the r e cords. 27. O n the question of theft of electr i city, this Court finds no reaso n to disturb the con c urrent findings recorded by th e courts below. Both the trial c o urt and the lower a p pellate court carefully considered the pleadings and oral testim o ny and concluded that the allegation of dishonest a b straction of energy was not pro v ed on the record. The trial court accepted that t he plaintiff had complained o f a defective meter and had moved Ex. P-2 for its c hecking and change and the m e ter showed an erra t ic pattern of operation and th a t the meter-reader who visited the premises mont h ly never reported any tamperin g and that the Flying Squad did not consult the concerned SDO/JE or follow an a d equate checking procedure be f ore drawing the in f erence of theft. The appellate c ourt similarly noted the plaintiff’s regular consum p tion pattern (about 1,200–1,70 0 units monthly), the absence of any contemporaneo u s report of seal-tampering by t he meter-reader, and the failur e of the Flying Squ a d to take procedural steps w h ich would have been expecte d if deliberate pilfe r age had been found. In that fa c tual background the Courts be l ow

¶65

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 10 -

¶67

rightly held tha t the demand by way of penalt y raised after an overhaul of t h ree years’ accounts was illegal, arbitrary and void, and that the deposit made by the plaintiff ought to be adjusted. Having reviewed the record and the reasoning o f the courts below, t h is Court concurs with those fin d ings the case for theft has not been established on t h e evidence. 28. Be f ore the enactment of the El e ctricity Act, 2003, the field w as governed by t h e Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) A ct, 1948, together with administrative circulars a n d instructions issued by the S t ate Electricity Boa r ds. Neither of those Acts cont a ined any express provision bar r ing the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Conseque n tly, the question of exclusio n of jurisdiction ha d to be determined by applying the general principle containe d in Section 9 of t h e Code of Civil Procedure, 1 908, i.e. that the civil court has jurisdiction to t r y all suits of a civil nature unl e ss such jurisdiction is expressl y or impliedly barre d by statute. However, in PSEB v. Ashwani Kumar (1997 (5) SCC 120) , the Hon’ b le Supreme Court analysed t h is very issue in depth. The C o urt noted that alth o ugh Section 9 CPC confers wi d e jurisdiction on civil courts, t hat jurisdiction ca n be excluded by necessary im p lication if the relevant statut e or departmental s c heme provides an effective st a tutory mechanism for redressa l of grievances. Th e Court observed that the Elect r icity Board had issued a serie s of statutory instru c tions and circulars for example, Circular No. 111/80 (20 Dece m ber 1980), Circular No. 111/84 (5 December 1984 ) and Circular No. 26/89 (7 Au g ust 1989), which c reated a structured internal m a chinery for review and appea l of assessments, i n cluding committees comprisi n g the Superintending Engineer, Executive Eng i neer, Chief Accounts Officer, and other officers empowere d to

¶68

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 11 -

¶70

consider and decide consumer objections regarding theft assessments and overhauling of a ccounts.

¶71

Th e Supreme Court held that whe r e such an administrative appellate or review foru m exists, the consumer must fir s t exhaust the departmental rem e dy provided under those circulars. The civil court s hould not ordinarily entertain a suit seeking declar a tion or injunction in matters that could have been effecti v ely resolved by tha t statutory mechanism. The rati o nale was that the Board’s circulars formed part of the statutory framework under t he Electricity (Supply) Act, 1 9 48, and hence, by n ecessary implication, the civil - court’s jurisdiction stood exclu d ed to that extent. H owever, the Court did not lay d o wn a blanket bar against civil s u its in all electricit y matters. It clarified that civil- c ourt jurisdiction would surviv e in limited situatio n s particularly where the depar t mental machinery failed to fol l ow fundamental pr o cedural fairness, or where th e dispute involved an indepen d ent civil right not c o vered by the Board’s statutory p rocedure. 30. Th u s, in Ashwani Kumar’s case (supra) , the Civil Court retaine d its general jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC but that jurisdiction was excluded by necessary impl i cation in cases where the Ele c tricity Board had already fra m ed effective appel l ate/review procedures for grie v ances arising out of assessments, penalties, or th e ft-related demands. The consu m er was required to approach t h ose authorities first and only in exceptional cases i n volving violation of natural jus t ice or lack of statut o ry remedy could the civil Cour t intervene. 31. Th i s position continued to apply u ntil the Electricity Act, 2003 c a me into force. The 2003 Act then replaced the ear l ier regime and inserted an exp r ess bar under Secti o n 145, clearly ousting civil-co u rt jurisdiction in specified mat t ers relating to asse s sment, disconnection, and theft o f energy.

¶72

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 12 -

¶74

Applying the said principle to the f acts of the present case, this C o urt finds that the alleged act of theft and the impu g ned demand arose out of event s in 1989, when the 2003 Act was not in force. Th e departmental circulars relied u p on by the appella n ts were only administrative i n structions and did not provi d e a judicial or qua s i-judicial mechanism compara b le to a statutory forum. Moreo v er, both the courts below have found that the Flying Squad acted without consul t ing the competent o fficers, failed to observe the prescribed procedure, and did not provide the pl a intiff an opportunity of hear i ng. These are clear instances of procedural ille g ality and breach of fairness, b r inging the dispute squarely wi t hin the jurisdiction o f the civil court. 33. In such circumstances, even un d er the law declared in Ashwani Kumar’s case (supra) , the exclusion of civil-c o urt jurisdiction cannot be infer r ed. The Supreme Court in that judgment itself reco g nized that where “the fundame n tal fairness of pro c edure has been violated”, or w here the departmental instruct i ons themselves are not followed, the consumer m ay approach the civil court for declaratory reli e f. 34. Fu r thermore, it is significant tha t the departmental circulars re l ied upon in Ashwani Kumar’s case (supra) were intended to operate prospectiv e ly, and the earliest of them (Circular No. 111/84 and Circular No. 26/89) prim a rily dealt with the p rocedure for internal review a n d recovery, not with ousting civilcourt jurisdicti o n. The existence of such int e rnal remedy cannot automatic a lly deprive a citiz e n of access to a civil court, u n less the statute itself provide s an express bar — w hich, as of 1989, did not exist. Therefore, this Court holds that the civil court rightly exercised jurisdiction to ente r tain and decide the plaintiff’s s uit.

¶75

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) - 13 -

¶77

The later decisi o n in Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra) , which interprets Section 145 of the Electrici t y Act, 2003, is wholly inappl i cable as it deals with a post-2 0 03 statutory bar. T he said provision has no retr o spective operation and canno t be invoked to nu l lify proceedings that arose u n der the earlier statutory regi m e. 35. Ac c ordingly, the plea of the appell a nts that the jurisdiction of the c ivil court was barre d is rejected.

¶78

Conclusion

¶79

In l ight of the above discussion, t h is Court finds that both the co u rts below have ret u rned well-reasoned and concur r ent findings based on the evidence on record. The allegation of theft of electri c ity has not been proved, and the demand raised b y the appellants was illegal an d without authority. The civil c o urt was fully com p etent to entertain the suit in v iew of the law prevailing at the relevant time.

¶80

Ac c ordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. T he judgments and decrees of the courts below da t ed 26.10.1990 and 06.05.1993 are hereby affirme d .

¶81

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶82

October 27, 20 2 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶83

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶84

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

P.S.E.B. v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.E.B. v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Birkha Alias Birkh Bhan Vs Darya Singh

(O&M) Rajinder Kumar Vs Des Raj

Sahib Singh Vs Tejpal Singh

Naib Raj Vs Ramesh Kumar

State Bank of India etc. Vs M/S Dashmesh Engg.Works etc.