Find a Lawyer

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MIAN SHAUKAT HAYAT

The detective bill for the slow running of the meter tampering meter to declare section 42, Electricity Act (IX of 1910), sections 20, 2 4, 26, 39 and 44 sued the plaintiff for such bill Challenged, the trial court retained the trial, which was retained. Prior to the issuance of the Appellate Court endorsement bill, issuance of a notice was an essential requirement of the Authority when the meter was not inspected and at the time of its inspection, the applicant issued a notice as required. There was nothing available on the Section 20 record of the Electricity Act, 1910, to prove that an officer of the authority or his team had checked the meter in connection with the plaintiff to allege the slow conduct of the meter. Granted the meter was not sent to the electric inspector to find out. The plaintiff was fined without requiring any meter because the molesting authority could not disobey the law or violate the law and could become a judge on its own cause. The plaintiff did not receive any complaint or notice from the Authority regarding the lapses or tampering with the meter authority to deprive the user of his rights; no error in the meter was identified by issuing a notice under the law. The courts had not neglected any part of the record for their legitimate consideration. The court dismissed the review request within the limits attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kamokey lawyer