SHAMI-UD-DIN vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman

ORDER

' Through this Constitutional petition, validity of the detention of Waseem-ud-Din detenue, a brother of the petitioner and an Ex-Director of the Bahawalpur Textile Mills, Khanpur has been assailed. It is alleged that under the order of Tehsildar/Revenue Officer WAPDA, the detenue has been lodged in civil prison at Rahimyar Khan on account of the default of some outstanding electricity bills against the aforesaid Textile Mills. It is alleged that the detenue is being confined in jail for the recovery of electricity charges amounting to Rs,6,16,448 due against the Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd., Khanpur. Detention of the petitioner's brother is being challenged mainly on the ground that the arrears are due from the Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd. a public limited company and not from Waseeem ud Din, detenue, who is now one of the ordinary shareholders of the said company, therefore, the confinement of the detenue in jail is illegal and without lawful authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the electricity connection was given to Bahawalpur Textile Mills way back in 1965, and till 1987 it continued as such, and in the same year the detenue, who was then the Director of the company applied to the WAPDA authorities for the reduction in load from 1500 KW to 900.12 KW. This application of the detenue was allowed as prayed for by the detenue. Thereafter, it is submitted that the detenue ceased to be the Director of the company. It is contended that the petitioner's brother has been arrested for the recovery of the dues in regard to the period when he ceased to be the Director of the company, inasmuch as, the detenue is not personally liable for the payment of the electricity bill, and in fact, it is the company which is liable, and the WAPDA authorities have not initiated any proceedings against the company. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on AIR 1955 Andhra 26 to contend that the Managing Director of a limited liability company cannot be made personally liable for arrears etc. Of the company, and the individuals constituting the company cannot be held responsible for the default of certain payments. There can, therefore, be no personal obligation on the shareholders or even the directors in respect of the debts or even the taxes, revenue etc. Due from the company. It is further contended that it is only the assets of the company that can be proceeded against.

2. To further elaborate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner refers PLD 1977 Lahore 1218 Pakistan Refugees Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and another v. Qasimpur Glass Industries Ltd., Multan. It was held in this case that the claims in respect of arrears due from the company are to be filed before the official liquidator.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 has referred to section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910 to define the "consumer" which means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee, or whose premises for the time being connected for the purposes of a supply of energy with the works of a licensee. In nutshell, it is argued that consumer includes the owner or occupier. To further advance his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on section 54(A) of the Electricity Act, 1910 wherein, it has been provided that charges for supply of energy are recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

4. Under section 80 of the Land Revenue Act, process for the recovery of arrears has been laid down and there are certain modes of recovery as defined in the section referred to above. It has further been provided in sections 85 and 88 of the Land Revenue Act to attach the holding and its sale respectively.

5. There is no denying the fact, that any defaulter of WAPDA can be arrested for recovering the dues as land revenue arrears. In this particular case, prima facie, the detenue does not seem to be a defaulter of WAPDA dues. The default, if any exists against the Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd., Khanpur and not against the petitioner's brother. The company owns extensive properties, and the WAPDA authorities can proceed against Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd. Under sections 85 and 88 of the Land Revenue Act for the attachment of the holding of the consumer.

6. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to section 91 of the Land Revenue Act which is meant for the remedies open to person denying his liability for an arrear. In the instant case, arrears have been declared as land revenue arrears against Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd. By the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rahimyarkhan through his order dated 29-1-1992. Therefore, if the consumer which is a public limited company denies its liability, can seek remedy under the aforesaid provision of law.

7. Considering the case from all angles, and having gone through the various provisions of law, I am of the opinion that a Director of a limited company cannot be held personally liable for the dues of the company. In this view of the matter, and particularly keeping in view the liberty of the person of the detenue, the civil suit would not be an efficacious remedy available to the detenue.

Under these circumstances, the detention of the detenue namely Waseem ad Din son of Roshan Din is declared illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and without lawful authority. I, therefor e, direct the Superintendent, District Jail, Rahimyarkhan to immediately set at liberty the detenue, presently detained in the Civil Prison, District Jail Rehimyar Khan.