Pakistan Case Law
2001 CLC 321

Messrs ERUM HEIGHTS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs KARACHI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 CLC 321
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, D-1427 of 2000
Date2000-09-28
Judge(s)Sabihuddin Ahmed and Mushir Alam
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners, an association of a residential project, challenged a utility bill issued by the respondent for electric charges, alleging it was illegal and that a security deposit of five million rupees was already available. The High Court declined to resolve the underlying factual controversy, holding that it ought to be resolved through the statutory forum of the Electric Inspector available under the relevant statute. However, the Court granted interim relief for the immediate restoration of power supply, reasoning that the denial of electric power to citizens might amount to an infringement of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under the Constitution. Such interim relief was made conditional upon the furnishing of further security by the petitioners, as the claimed amount fell within the category of public revenue. The matter was accordingly referred to the Electric Inspector for disposal according to law, with directions that power remain connected subject to furnishing security and payment of recurring bills.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the High Court resolve factual controversies regarding disputed utility bills under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the denial of electric power to citizens amount to an infringement of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether interim relief for the restoration of utility services can be granted subject to furnishing security when the disputed amount constitutes public revenue?
  • Is a dispute regarding electric charges required to be referred to the statutory forum of the Electric Inspector?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Order 39 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Electricity Act 1910
electric chargesinterim reliefrestoration of powerright to lifepublic revenueconstitutional petitionelectric inspector

ORDER

1. The petitioners claim to be an Association of a Residential Project as "Messrs Erum Heights" in Gulistan-e-Jauhar, have called in question a Bill from the respondent No.1 for Rs.6,615,000 stated to be payable by way of Electric Charges for Residential and Commercial Premises in the aforesaid Project. It is alleged that the bill is patently illegal and that an amount of Rs.5 million is already available with the respondent No.1 by way of security furnished at the time of installation of power.

2. The Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have defended the correctness of the bill and argued that the petitioners are great defaulters; however, no specific denial of the allegations of Rs.5 million available by way of security has been made.

3. We are of the view that the factual controversy ought to be resolved through Statutory Forum of Electric Inspector available under the Electricity Act . and it is not proper for this Court to enter into such controversy. However, the petitioners have applied for interim relief seeking immediate restoration of power supplied and we think such relief ought to be granted as denial of Electric Power to the citizens might amount to infringement of the right to life guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, such relief cannot be granted unless the petitioners are put to terms as the amount claim falls within the category of "Public Revenue" defined in under Order 39, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we would direct that the respondent No.1 will immediately reconnect Electric Power subject to the condition that the petitioners will furnish further security in the sum of Rs.1,700,000 to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court within a week from today. Such security may be furnished either by the petitioners themselves or by anybody else on their behalf. The matter will thereafter be referred to the Electric Inspector for disposal of the dispute according to law after notices to all the parties. The respondent will not disconnect electric supply till the final decision of the Inspector or non-furnishing of security. The petitioners will also continue to pay recurring bills.

4. Petition and so also the listed application in above terms, stand disposed of.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.