Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115, 9, 3

Law: Electricity Act, 1910

Section: 26(6)

Law: Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997

Section: 38 & 45

The electricity distribution company (LESCO) challenged concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, which had declared an electricity bill of Rs. 205,043 excessive and illegal. The High Court held that the suit itself was not maintainable, as it had been filed on behalf of a deceased consumer without impleading his legal heirs, rendering the proceedings legally defective. The Court further clarified that technical disputes relating to electricity meters, billing, and consumption fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and NEPRA's statutory mechanism, not civil courts. Examining the record, the Court found that the disputed bill resulted from accumulated unpaid dues, as reflected in the consumer's payment history (Exh.D1), rather than excessive billing. Consequently, the concurrent judgments of the courts below were set aside and the civil revision was allowed. Tagline Technical electricity billing and metering disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and NEPRA; civil courts cannot adjudicate such matters by implication where a special statutory remedy exists. ORDER; Through this Civil Revision, LESCO has assailed the concurrent findings of the Civil Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge in appeal, dated 04.07.2016 and 14.12.2017, passed by the courts below, whereby a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, challenging the electricity bill for the month of April 2011 amounting to Rs.2,05,043/- with the claim that the same was excessive, has been decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit for declaration filed by the respondent is not maintainable in terms of section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, as well as in terms of section 38 of The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 and even otherwise the respondent is not the consumer as per record, and he filed the suit on behalf of a dead person without impleading the legal heirs, which itself is reflective of the fact that the entire proceedings are coram non judice, but the courts below have not appreciated this aspect. It is lastly…