High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-07Appeal dismissed; civil injunction not maintain...

K. V. Bhavanendran v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case / Petition Number:A.S.No.522 of 2000

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. S. Satheesachandran
Judgment Date: 2013-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is dismissed. The court held that the civil court cannot entertain an injunction against a statutory electricity demand where a statutory remedy is available, and directed both sides to bear their costs. The judge clarified that dismissal of the suit does not bar the appellant from pursuing relief under the statutory rules through the appropriate authority.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; civil injunction not maintainable; parties to bear costs; right to statutory remedy preserved

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.V. Bhavanendran

Respondents

Kerala State Electricity Board (represented by its Secretary)
Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Major Section, S.L. Puram, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri J. Om Prakash

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Sharan, SC, K.S.E.Board

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant, K. V. Bhavanendran, proprietor of Ambili Oil Mills in North Aryad, Alappuzha, sought an injunction restraining the Kerala State Electricity Board from enforcing a minimum guarantee charge under a minimum guarantee agreement (Ext. B1) after operations of his oil mill ceased due to working capital constraints. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the relief sought was not warranted. On appeal, the appellant argued that notwithstanding dismissal, he should retain the right to challenge the Board’s demand under Clause 48 of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990, by moving to the competent authority and raising objections to the demand. The respondents contended that the suit for injunction against a statutory authority's demand is not maintainable in civil courts where a statutory remedy exists, and that only the amounts due under Ext. B1 could be recovered by the Board. The High Court framed the issue within the spectrum of whether civil courts can entertain injunctions against statutory demands in electricity matters and concluded that such suits are not maintainable where there is a statutory remedy. It cited Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar to emphasize that the remedy under the statute must be exhausted before approaching civil courts. The court dismissed the appeal but clarified that the petitioner may pursue statutory remedies and that costs should be borne by both sides.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 48 of Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990Clause 49 of Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990Section 9 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code)Indian Electricity ActIndian Electricity (Supply) Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Fundamental fairness of procedure
Exhaustion of statutory remedies before civil courts (when a statutory remedy exists)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel urged that notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit, the appellant should preserve the right to challenge the Board’s demand under Clause 48 of the Regulations, by moving the competent authority and raising objections to the demand under the minimum guarantee agreement. He stressed the availability of a statutory remedy and the need to respect the appellant’s rights to contest the charges through the established appellate mechanism rather than via civil injunctive relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that a suit seeking injunctive relief against a statutory authority’s demand is not maintainable in a civil court where a statutory remedy exists. They argued that only the amounts legally due under Ext. B1 may be recovered by the Board, and that Clause 49 provides an effective remedy that must be exhausted before approaching civil courts. The court’s jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC is not triggered to bypass the statutory scheme.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar	1997(5) SCC 120	Positive	Used to support the proposition that civil courts should not entertain such injunctions and must direct the party to avail the statutory remedy under the Electricity Act and related regulations; reinforces the need to exhaust statutory remedies before civil courts.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. V. Bhavanendran v. Kerala State Electricity Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **AS.No. 522 of 2000 (D)** ## **----------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 20/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 28-03-1998.** ## **APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:-** ## **--------------------** **K.V.BHUVANENDRAN, KURUPASSERIL, NORTH ARYAD MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:-** **----------------------** **1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, S.L. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA.** - **BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD** **THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.522 of 2000. = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7[th] November, 2013. ## **J U D G M E N T** Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was one for injunction. After trial, suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree of dismissal he has preferred this appeal. 2. Plaintiff is the Proprietor of an oil mills, namely, Ambili Oil Mills, situate in North Aryad, Alappuzha. Executing a minimum guarantee agreement with the first defendant Electricity Board, plaintiff got electric supply for functioning his oil mills. He could run the factory only for six months and had to close it down due to scarcity of working capital, and as such some delay occurred in paying the minimum charges guaranteed to the Electricity Board, according to plaintiff. Coercive steps were initiated by the defendants to realise exorbitant sum, as if such amount was due from him towards the minimum charge in terms of the agreement. Plaintiff was called upon to pay a sum of **A.S.No.522/2000.** 2 Rs.1,27,377/- towards the dues alleged threatening him disconnection of electric supply to his establishment. Steps so taken by the defendants are illegal, was his case to seek a decree of injunction. Second defendant, an officer working in the first defendant Board filed a written statement disputing the allegations imputed in the plaint. Among other contentions the defendant also challenged the maintainability of the suit. Whatever amounts legally due to the defendants alone was sought to be recovered in terms of Ext.B1 agreement, was the case of the defendant. 3. Learned Sub Judge appreciating the pleadings of the parties and also materials tendered in the case coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief canvassed, dismissed the suit. Correctness and legality of that decision is challenged in this case. 4. I heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for appellant confined his submissions to urge for reservation of the right of appellant despite the dismissal of **A.S.No.522/2000.** 3 his suit, to move an appeal before the competent authority as provided under Clause 48 of Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 to raise his objections over the demand made by the Board towards the charges under the minimum guarantee agreement. 5. A suit of the nature to injunct the demand made to a consumer by the Board cannot be entertained before the civil courts except where it is shown that the proceedings relating to the demand are vitiated on account of violative of fundamental fairness of procedure. Apex Court in **Punjab** **State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar** (1997(5) SCC 120) examining the question whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature has held thus: “Section 9 of the CPC provides that the civil court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication 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 **A.S.No.522/2000.** 4 of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. 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 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.” Clause 49 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 provides an alternative efficacious remedy to the plaintiff if he has any grievance over the demand by an officer of the Board on the charges claimed towards the amount due under Ext.B1 agreement. A right of appeal so provided has necessarily to be exhausted by the party aggrieved and he cannot straight away rush to the civil court whatever be his grievance over the demand made by the statutory authority. A suit filed seeking injunction to restrain the statutory authority from enforcing the demand as provided under Ext.B1 agreement and the rules applicable, cannot be entertained and adjudged by the civil court. So much so, I find dismissal of the suit by the court 5 ## **A.S.No.522/2000.** below does not call for any interference. But, I make it clear that dismissal of the suit shall not stand in the way of appellant seeking appropriate relief as provided by the statutory rules, and if any such representation is moved, it shall be considered and disposed by the authority concerned in accordance with law. Subject to the observations made above the appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their costs. **Sd/S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, (Judge)** ## **Kvs/-** -// true copy //- PA to Judge. 6 ## **A.S.No.522/2000.** ## **S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.522 of 2000. = = = = = = = = = = **J U D G M E N T** Dated: 7[th] November, 2013. ## **A.S.No.522/2000.** 7