Mian MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs WAPDA AND OTHERS

' The learned counsel for the respondent has explained the factual as well as the legal position. As all what has been said, could be said even on the regular hearing. I formally admit this petition and dispose it of today.

2. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity being supplied by WAPDA. In the year 1981 a Martial Law Team alongwith electricity experts checked the meter at his factory and allegedly found it correct.

However, detection bill for 96720 units was sent to the petitioner on 25th May, 1981, in the sum of Rs, 61,620.31. The petitioner allegedly protested against the same. The Executive Engineer reported to the Chief Engineer for charging the petitioner on 50% slowness of the meter, for the last three months, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. It is not known what did the Chief Engineer decide.

3. However, another detection bill dated 14th June, 1981 in the sum of Rs, 15,508.45 was served on the petitioner which he paid under protest. It was followed by another bill for Rs, 10,148.15 which was also paid by him, allegedly, under protest by the due date.

4. The petitioner then made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting to change the meter. Some audit party had also pointed previously the defect in the meter and stated that the same may be changed. That was not done. Instead, the petitioner again received a detection bill for 91,526 units amounting to Rs, 78,203.98 to be paid on or before 6th of June, 1982. As the petitioner could not do that, the connection was disconnected.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel that as it allegedly came to the notice of the respondents before, May, 1981, that the meter was defective they were obliged to replace the same and send it to the Electric Inspector under section 24 of the Electricity Act, to find out the defect or the amount of slowness. In the alternative, they could prepare bill on the past average consumption.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that none of the above two things has been done. According to him, the detecting party having found 50% slowness of the meter, on the basis of its own instrument there was no necessity to send the Inspector. There is however, nothing to show that the Chief Engineer agreed with that proposal of the Executive Engineer.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents however, is not correct. In case the respondents, had found that the meter was defective they ought to have either replaced or charged on the average consumption in the past. They did neither of the two. They even not did send the meter further on to the Electric Inspector. It is, therefore, the conduct of the relevant officers of the respondent which questionable. They could not ignore or violate the law and become judges in their own cause to deprive the petitioner of his rights under section 24 of the Electricity Act.

In view of the above, the impugned bills which had been sent without getting the meter tested from the Electric Inspector or without basing the bill on the average of past are declared to be without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The respondents are further directed to immediately send the meter, which is admittedly still sealed, to the Electric Inspector, for passing an order under section 24 of the Electricity Act. The respondent states that the matter will be sent to the Electric Inspector within two days. The Electric Inspector is directed to pass his order within a period of 7 days, thereafter. There will be no order as to costs.