Special Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Civil Recovery Suits for Supplementary Electricity Bills under Electricity Act

The Appellant (PGVCL) discovered that the Defendant, though not a registered consumer, was allegedly extracting electricity illegally via direct hooking during surprise inspections on 12.05.2006 and 12.12.2006

Consequently, PGVCL issued a supplementary bill for Rs. 1,04,712/- and subsequently filed Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 2009 for recovery after the Defendant failed to pay

The Special Judge (3rd Additional Sessions Judge), Surendranagar, dismissed the suit on 29.08.2011, citing unreliable evidence and a failure to prove illegal extraction

PGVCL appealed this dismissal under Section 96 of the CPC

1. Whether a Civil Court/Trial Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of a supplementary bill issued for malpractice when the consumer failed to challenge it before the statutory Appellate Authority

2. Whether a Special Court (Sessions Court) possesses the jurisdiction to entertain and decide a civil suit for the recovery of dues under the Electricity Act, 2003

If a consumer is aggrieved by a supplementary bill, they must exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority as per the "Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy"; failure to do so renders the bill final.

Established in Gujarat Electricity Board Ltd. v. Pragjibhai Bhagwanbhai Patolia and Vrajlal Devjibhai v. GEB, relying on Supreme Court precedents in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar and Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board.

Per North Delhi Power Limited v. Devinder Singh, a Special Electricity Court is exclusively for criminal matters and lacks jurisdiction to entertain civil suits.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s dismissal flawed as it ignored the principle of "probability" and improperly entered into the legality of a supplementary bill that had attained finality due to the Defendant's failure to challenge it via statutory appeal.

The Court noted that in recovery suits, subordinate courts should not re-examine the merits of a final bill if the consumer bypassed the provided administrative remedy.

Crucially, the Court observed a jurisdictional error: the suit was decided by a Special Judge (Sessions Judge), whereas the Supreme Court has clarified that Special Courts under the Electricity Act are designated for criminal trials, not civil recovery suits.

The appeal is allowed, and the judgment dated 29.08.2011 is quashed.

The case is remanded and restored to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar, with directions to transfer it to a competent Civil Court for a fresh decision on merits within six months.