WAPDA through Chairman, and 5 otherss vs MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK and 2
This constitutional petition under the Lahore High Court was filed by WAPDA against orders passed by the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board regarding a detection bill issued to an industrial consumer for a slow-running meter. The core legal question revolved around the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector to decide a matter under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 after the expiry of the mandatory 90-day statutory period. The court held that upon the lapse of the 90-day period, the Electric Inspector becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction, and authority vests solely in the Provincial Government. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders of the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board as coram non judice and void ab initio, remanding the matter to the Provincial Government for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that statutory time limits governing adjudicatory forums must be strictly observed, and failure to render a decision within the stipulated timeframe divests the forum of its jurisdiction, transferring the same to the designated appellate or alternate authority.
- Does an Electric Inspector lose jurisdiction to decide a meter dispute under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 after the expiry of the 90-day statutory period?
- Which authority becomes vested with the power to decide a meter dispute when the Electric Inspector fails to render a decision within the statutory 90-day period under the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Are orders passed by an Electric Inspector after becoming functus officio considered void ab initio and coram non judice?
- Section 24(2), Electricity Act 1910
- Section 26(6), Electricity Act 1910
ORDER
' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Constitutional petition assails the validity of orders dated 30-9- 2003 and 8-1-2005 purported to have been passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that respondent No,1 an industrial consumer is running a gas factory at Bund Road Lahore. On 3-1-2003 the Standing Committee of WAPDA/LESCO is stated to have inspected the metering equipment installed at the premises of respondent No,1 and detected certain discrepancies, vis-a-vis, slowness of the meter to the extent of 33.33%. Thus, on 27-1-2003, Show-Cause Notice was issued to the consumer followed by detection bill for the months of October and November, 2002. It appears that consumer invoked the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector to the Government of Punjab on 12-4-2003 in terms of sections 26(6) and 24(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910. Petitioners appeared and filed written reply supplementing the detected slowness. Anyway, the Electric Inspector declared the detection bill as illegal vide order dated 30- 9-2003. Petitioners challenged the same in appeal before the Advisory Board Punjab on the ground that Electric Inspector had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings after expiry of mandatory period of 90 days as contemplated by section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, as admittedly, the consumer had filed application before him on 12-4-2003, which was decided by him after lapse of statutory period of 90 days, thus, proceedings before respondent No,2 were coram non judice and void ab initio. It is alleged that while adjudicating upon appeal, respondent No,3 in terms of order dated 8- 1-2005 unjustifiably modified the decision of respondent No,2 dated 30-9-2003 which on the face of it was void ab initio and coram non judice.
3. A careful analysis of section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 makes it abundantly clear that after the lapse of statutory period of 90 days, it is the Provincial Government which alone was vested with authority to decide the matter. In the instant case, the Electric Inspector had become functus officio. Hence, the orders of the Electric Inspector and that of the Advisory Board, impugner herein, are set aside, and the matter is referred to the Provincial Government for decision in accordance with law. Parties shall be at liberty to raise legal and factual objections and the Provincial Government shall resolve the issue expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.
Cited by 3 cases
- FSCO through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others vs AL-MURTAZA COTTON 2015 PLJ Lahore 470, 2015 MLD 1307
- Syed MUSHTAQ AHMAD, PROPRIETOR SHAHBAZ FLOOR MILLS, HAROONABAD 2015 PLJ Lahore 454
- FESCO through Chief Executive Officer, Faisalabad and 3 others vs AL- 2015 PLJ Lahore 470