MADAN, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE petitioner-Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short `the Board') has come up by way of this revision petition against the Judgment/Order dated 16.9.97 passed in Appeal No. 6/97 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned appellate court rejected the appeal preferred by the Board and affirmed the Judgment/Order of the trial court granting permanent injunction dated 18.3.97 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Cum Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in Case No. 28/97. The relevant resume as briefly stated, is that the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khetri praying therein that they be released electric connection under One/two Pole Scheme for which demand notice was issued to them and they had deposited the entire amount but the said connection could not be released by the appellant-Board on account of the fact that they were caught committing theft of electricity, which according to the respondents was not theft because they were enjoing electricity connection under deemed category, and therefore, the appellant-Board could not compel them to opt for release of electric connection under Nursery Scheme and they be allowed to avail the benefit of electric connection as well as the same be released under One/Two Pole Scheme. The matter came up for hearing before the appellate court, which while accepting the application for temporary injunction passed the final order on the said application by granting final relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit irrespective of the fact that the main suit was pending, and ordered to release electric connection in favour of the plaintiff under the 1/2 Pole Scheme within fifteen days of the said order. Alternatively, the appellate court was of the view that since the respondent was involved in committing theft of energy and in that eventuality the appellant Board shall be free to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The appellant-Board being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, which came to be ultimately transferred and finally decided by the Additional District Judge, Khetri vide Order dated 16.9.97, whereby the said appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court by observing "that since with regard to the theft of energy there was no documentary evidence on the record nor any notice had been served to the consumer prior to the conversion of the connection from 1/II Pole Scheme to Nursery Scheme in accordance with Rule 14 A of the State RSEB Rules, subject to the undertaking being furnished by the consumer to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lacs and in case the Board succeeds in appeal then they will be entitled to claim adjustment of the decretal amount in view of the security furnished by the consumer under Nursery Scheme launched by the petitioner-Board. During the course of hearing Shri Virendra Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the letter dated 19.1.2000 of the Chief District Manager, Electricity, Jhunjhunu addressed to the Director (Legal Affairs), RSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, R.C. Dave Marg, Jaipur, which is an internal departmental communication mentioning therein that since out of 14 consumers who were covered by Nursery Scheme, 13 of them had appeared before the Settlement Committee constituted by the Board and which was presided over by the Chief Engineer (JJn. Zone), RSEB, Jhunjhunu, on 28.5.99; one consumer/applicant Shri Dalip Singh s/o Mahipal Singh, who is the respondent in this revision petition, had since not deposited the amount decided by the Committee though he had given his consent to abide by the decision of the Committee was not entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme. All those 13 similarly placed consumers, who had given their consent to the Settlement Committee, in the manner as aforesaid, then connection has been regularised under the Nursery Scheme in accordance with the minutes recorded by the Settlement Committee while the respondent Dalip Singh's case could not be considered since notwithstanding his oral consent he had not deposited the amount. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board and another vs. Ashwani Kumar (1), wherein the Apex Court has held that "by necessary implication, 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 alternative remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Supply Act and the Instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above. The necessary inference which can be derived from the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court is that since the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in such matter where the remedy is provided either under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act itself or under the Instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time, as stated above, i.e. the Instructions issued by the RSEB for resolving such matters by the Settlement Committee, I am of the view that it was not open to the respondent to bypass the procedure with regard to the settlement on such matters since the Settlement Committee as constituted by the Appellant-Board is duly authorised and competent to resolve such dispute under the instructions to the Board and hence the respondent-plaintiff should not have chosen the remedy of filing suit for injunction by invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Such matters, prima facie can be resolved by a conciliatory method adopted by virtue of the Settlement Committee and time of the Board should not be wasted in adjudication of such disputes particularly when the remedy of conciliatory proceedings is already available for resolving the same. These Settlement Committees are statutory authorities and have been constituted as per the guide-lines having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of PSEB and Another vs. Ashwani Kumar (supra).
(3.) FROM the perusal of the office report, it is borne out that cognizance of the notice which was issued by the court on 16.12.97, notices were got served on the respondents as on 2.06.1998 itself and despite service having been completed, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 16.9.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khetri District Jhunjhunu confirming the order dated 18.2.97 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khetri, is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and stands disposed of as observed hereinabove.;