1. The petitioner, as plaintiff, has proposed to file a suit before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, as against the respondents herein. The learned District Munsif, by order dtd. 10/6/2022, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, without numbering the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is a Company involved in generating electricity using solar power and they have set up their plant near the petitioner’s property. In order to transmit the power generated, the first respondent has erected electric poles in the petitioner’s property, without obtaining any permission. Therefore, the petitioner has proposed to file a suit, however, the trial Court has rejected the plaint stating that civil Courts do not have jurisdiction under Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bar as referred to under Sec. 145 of the Act is only with regard to the issues coming under Sec. 126 [unauthorized usage of electricity] and Sec. 127 [appeal remedy] of the Act, which is not the case herein. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

4. This Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner’s Counsel and perused the materials on the record.

5. The language employed under Sec. 145 of the Act is clear and the bar of civil Court’s jurisdiction is only with respect to any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Sec. 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Sec. 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act is empowered or to determine under the Act. Sec. 126 of the Act deals with the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity and Sec. 127 is the appeal remedy to the assessment order made.

6. For the sake of convenience, Sec. 145 of the Act is extracted as under:-

“145. (Civil courts not to have jurisdiction): No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Sec. 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Sec. 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” A plain reading of the above provision shows that a specific restriction is made to matters covered under Ss. 126 and 127 alone. This cannot be, in any way, read as a bar to all other types of suit initiated under the Act. The case at hand is clearly not a case of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity and therefore, the bar under Sec. 145 of the Act is not applicable to this case.

7. At the same time, it has to be seen that the remedy against unauthorized laying of electric poles is provided under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, issued under Sec. 67(1) of the Act. This issue was elaborately discussed by this Court in R.Santhana Raj v. T.N. Electricty Board [(2012) 1 CTC 504], as follows:-

“34. As we have seen earlier, the Central Government had issued the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 with effect from 18/4/2006. Rule 3(1) empowers the licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land, to carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, wherever or where under any electric supply line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee. The First Proviso to Rule 3(1) states that in case the owner or occupier raises objections, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf. The Second Proviso to Rule 3(1) provides a remedy to the owner or occupier of the building, on whose lands, any works have been carried out. Under this proviso, if the owner or occupier shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may direct any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

35. Thus it is clear from Rule 3(1) of the 2006 Rules that despite the repeal of Sec. 12(2) of the 1910 Act, by the 2003 Act, the requirement of prior consent is introduced under the Rules issued in exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 67(2). As a matter of fact, Sec. 12(2) of the 1910 Act spoke only about consent and not about prior consent. But Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 speaks of prior consent. The new addition under the 2006 Rules is that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police is empowered to overrule the objections of the owner or occupier and permit the licensee to carry out the works. Another addition is that the owner or occupier also has a remedy, even after the laying down of the poles, overhead lines etc., to move the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to remove or alter such poles or lines. 36.But unfortunately, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 makes it clear that nothing contained in this Rule shall affect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Sec. 164 of the Act. Therefore, the requirement of prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land, prescribed under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Works of licensees Rules 2006, is subject to the powers, if any conferred upon the licensee under Sec. 164.”

8. From the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, it can be seen that only after getting prior consent from the land owner, laying of the electricity lines can be done. Even in case of any works already done, the remedy is before the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, who has enough power to stay the process and can even order to remove or alter. It has to be seen that the Rules do not affect the licensees under Sec. 164 of the Act, which is for the exercise of powers of telegraph authority. But, this does not apply to the case on hand, as the first respondent herein being a solar power generator seeks to transmit the power generated by way of the electric poles. Therefore, the petitioner has a better remedy as contemplated under the Act and in fact, the petitioner would be left remedyless only if the suit is entertained. In the decision in R.Santhana Raj’s case (supra), this Court has further held as follows:-

“63. Even if I allow the prayer for mandamus, it would be open to the Respondents to seek the permission of the District Magistrate to pass an order under Sec. 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. If the District Magistrate chooses to exercise his discretion to direct the Petitioner to permit the erection of towers, nothing much could be done thereafter, since the power of judicial review over such exercise of discretion may be limited. On the other hand, even if I refuse the prayer for mandamus sought by the Petitioner, he would still have two types of remedies against the Respondents. They are (i) a remedy under Sec. 16(3) for determining the sufficiency of compensation and (ii) a remedy under Sec. 17(1) to require the Respondents to remove or alter the line or post and a remedy under Sec. 17(2) to apply to the District Magistrate to direct the removal of the line or post. In other words, the grant of the prayer for mandamus after the Respondents have completed the erection of towers would leave the Respondents remedyless, while the refusal of the prayer for mandamus would not leave the Petitioner remedyless.”

9. The trial Court rejected the plaint only by referring to Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Though it is not applicable in this case, the suit is still not maintainable in view of Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For better understanding, the said Sec. is extracted as under:-

“9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. [Explanation I].- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. [Explanation ll].- For the purposes of this Sec. , it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.]”

10. As per Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil Court has no jurisdiction not only where the jurisdiction is expressly barred, but also where it is impliedly barred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1089], has held as follows:-

“7. … .Before we consider the scope of the said decision, it will be convenient to notice some of the propositions of law settled in the context of the ouster of jurisdiction of a civil court. Under Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “The Courts shall, subject to the provisions herein contained, have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred”. A suit is expressly barred if a legislation in express terms says so. It is impliedly barred if a statute creates a new offence or a new right and prescribes a particular penalty or special remedy. … … …

23. The legal position that emerges from the discussion may be summarized thus: If a statute imposes a liability and creates an effective machinery for deciding questions of law or fact arising in regard to that liability, it may, by necessary implication, bar the maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability. A statute may also confer exclusive jurisdiction on the authorities constituting the said machinery to decide finally a jurisdictional fact thereby excluding by necessary implication the jurisdiction of a civil court in that regard.”

11. The petitioner has an alternative remedy in the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, issued under Sec. 67(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides adequate remedy before and after the laying of electric poles. Therefore, the present suit filed for restraining the respondents from laying electric poles and removing the laid electric poles is not maintainable and it is impliedly barred under Sec. 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, since an effective remedy is provided under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, before the District Magistrate or before the Commissioner of Police.

In view of the above, the civil revision petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

Advocates Names