KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE Vs. SHA KANJI DEVJI OIL MILLS KESHWAPUR HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is the companion petition to Karnataka Electricity Board and Another v M/s. Sha Kanji Devji Oil Mills, Keshwapur, Hubli, which has been disposed of by the court today. The plaintiffs who are the respondents to this petition had instituted a suit in the court of the munsiff at hubli against the Karnataka electricity board, who are the petitioners before me praying for certain reliefs which essentially centred around a challenge to the action on the part of the Karnataka electricity board in having disconnected the power supply to the plaintiffs rice mill. Whereas the Karnataka electricity board contended that there were allegations of theft of electric power aggregating to over Rs. 6 lakhs against the plaintiffs unit, the defendants contended that the allegations were unjustified and groundless. Basically, they pleaded before the court that no notice was served on them, that this was a flagrant breach of the rules of natural Justice and that therefore the power should be reconnected. The trial court granted this relief which came to be confirmed by the appeal court and the defendants k.e.b. complied with the court directions. At the stage when the issues were framed, the k.e.b. raised a plea that the suit itself was not maintainable and has challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit and to try it principally on the ground that the Karnataka electricity board (recovery of dues) Act, 1976, provides for an alternate procedure in cases where action is contemplated or taken against the consumer. Briefly stated, it is the case of the board that where there are well-defined statutory Provisions which provide for adequate relief to the consumer namely, that it is open to the consumer to get the power reconnected after depositing the whole or a proportionate part of the amount demanded and where the entire power vests in the board to re-examine the correctness of the demand, that the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely and totally barred. I need to clarify that Section 5 does empower an aggrieved consumer to file a suit challenging the liability to payment but that will have to be done after following the procedure prescribed therein namely, after paying the dues, penalty costs etc., And this presupposes the fact that a notice of demand for dues, penalty etc., Has been served under Section 4. Whereas it is the case of the board that the filing of the present suit was totally and completely unjustified and that it was not maintainable, mrs. Nesargi on behalf of the respondents submits that the suit was very much maintainable because the plaintiffs' first grievance was that no such notice of demand had ever been served on the plaintiffs irrespective of what the nature of the allegation against them was. She therefore submitted that the service of notice was condition precedent and that the board had not done this. Secondly, it is contended that the action was abrupt and that the plaintiffs had no other remedy except to seek a mandatory relief and thirdly, the submission canvassed was that the law itself does not prescribe any prohibition against a consumer from approaching a court and that under these circumstances, the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the suit filed by the present plaintiffs was maintainable.

(2.) the argument canvassed in the present case on behalf of the petitioners seeks to rely heavily on the decision of this court in I.N.Mahabaleswara Madyasta v Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and another. In a well considered judgment, this court did have occasion to point out that it would not be open to a court to grant a permanent injunction restraining the statutory body from performing its functions and duties. There are certain other aspects that fell for decision in that case with which we are not concerned. As far as the present aspect of the matter goes, the petitioners' learned Advocate submitted that where there are well-defined Provisions which require an aggrieved party to approach the authorities, and where the Provisions themselves specify that the grievance will have to be re-examined and where provision is made even for reconnection on payment of a reasonable or proportionate amount, that it is not open to the civil courts to not only interfere in the matter and pass judicial orders which would conflict with the decisions and functioning of the board, but that on the other hand, that it is inappropriate for a civil court to adjudicate on the question regarding dues etc., When the power vests with the board.

(3.) there is considerable substance in this grievance but i need to draw a clear distinction between the two aspects of the matter, the first is with regard to the broad question as to whether at all the jurisdiction vests in a civil court to entertain a dispute of this type in the first instance. The answer to that question would have to be in the affirmative because there is no statutory bar that has been prescribed whereby an aggrieved party is prohibited from approaching the court. Instances do arise whereunder it may be necessary in cases of grave urgency or emergency to approach a civil court for a temporary or transitory relief even in the first instance. It would therefore be incorrect and inappropriate to say that the civil court's jurisdiction is barred or that a court can or should never entertains a dispute of this type. Experience has shown that the civil courts and even this court have had to intervene on numerous occasions and grant transitory reliefs because the situation so warrants.