KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

ORDER

1. ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J. --We intend to dispose of the above petition by this common order as the same involves common points of fact and law. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Electricity Inspector to Government of Sind, Karachi Region and those of the Appellate Authority.

2. The facts are that the petitioners had issued Supplementary Bills to the consumer i.e. Respondent No. 3 in each petition on the alleged ground that the measuring apparatus were not functioning properly or it had been tampered with and therefore, short reading was shown. The respondent No. 3 in each case challenged the same before the Electric Inspector, Karachi Region, under the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act 1910. The Electric Inspector after hearing the parties passed the impugned orders against which the petitioners filed appeals before the Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sind, Karachi, which all were dismissed as time barred accept in three cases wherein the same were dismissed on merits.

3. Mr. G.M. Saleem with Mr. Qazi Khalid Ali Advocates for the petitioners have argued that they were not served with the due notice as required under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act and that the Electric Inspector did not decide the case within 90 days as required by the law. They have further argued that their appeals should have been treated as a reference as their cases have not been decided within 90 days as stated earlier. We have perused the impugned orders and find that the petitioners were not only heard by the Electrical Inspector but were also represented by their counsel and that the matters were decided by him within due time as required under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act.

4. The order of the Electric Inspector also shows that the same is based on merits as he has passed the order taking into consideration the average consumption of the Respondent No. 3 on the basis of consumption of electricity during undisputed period and even after the installation of the new meters. His g findings are based on the facts of actual electricity consumed from which he has taken the average consumption. This being finding of fact we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In the present case the petitioners, as it appears from the orders of the Electrical Inspector, had issued supplementary bills to the respondent No. 3 which have been held to be without any factual basis and consequently the relief has been allowed by the Electrical Inspector to the respondent No. 3.

5. Since we are not satisfied on merits, we are not inclined to go into technical aspects urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. For the above reasons we find no merits in the present petitions which are dismissed in limine.

7. Above are the reasons for the short order announced by us today.

8. M.Y.H./K-143/K

9. Petitions dismissed.