Civil Court jurisdiction is barred regarding installation and relocation of electricity distribution infrastructure under Electricity Act.

The Respondent, owner of a property in Najafgarh, Delhi, filed a civil suit (CS SCJ 324/2021) seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the Petitioner from installing an electricity transformer adjacent to his property, claiming it hindered his right to passage

The Petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act"), expressly and impliedly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to the electricity distribution network

On March 22, 2022, the Trial Court dismissed the application, ruling that the bar under Section 145 applies only to proceedings under Sections 126 and 127 of the Act

The Petitioner subsequently challenged this order before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for injunction against the installation or relocation of electricity infrastructure is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether the Electricity Act, 2003, constitutes a "complete code" that impliedly excludes Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC

The Court primarily applied Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which prohibits Civil Courts from entertaining suits regarding matters determined by an assessing officer, appellate authority, or adjudicating officer under the Act, and mandates that "no injunction shall be granted" regarding any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred by the Act

It relied on the principles from Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which state that jurisdiction is excluded if a statute provides adequate remedies and gives finality to specialized Tribunal orders

The Court followed the Division Bench precedent in B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., affirming that the Electricity Act is a complete code that impliedly bars Civil Court jurisdiction

Furthermore, it applied the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, which establish the statutory framework for the installation and relocation of electrical works through the DERC and District Magistrate

The Court determined that Section 145 of the Act contains an expansive prohibition against Civil Courts granting injunctions for any action taken "in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act"

It reasoned that the Trial Court erroneously restricted the scope of Section 145 to Sections 126 and 127, whereas the "last segment" of the provision applies to all actions under the Act, including the installation of infrastructure under Sections 42 and 67

The Court observed that the Act provides a specialized adjudicatory hierarchy—including the DERC, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) under Section 111, and a further appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 125—which constitutes an equally efficacious relief, thereby attracting the bar under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act

The Court concluded that since the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, provide a specific grievance redressal mechanism through the District Magistrate or DERC for objections to electrical works, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is both expressly and impliedly barred under Section 9 of the CPC

It held that the Civil Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the installation, operation, maintenance, or relocation of the electricity distribution network, as these matters are governed exclusively by the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Rules framed thereunder

The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must be allowed as the suit is barred by law