Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 432 of 1972, decided on 21st June 1973.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 6th June 1972, in Civil Revision No. 951 of 1969).

Art. 186‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Temporary injunction‑Petitioners neither making out a prima facie case for injunction nor balance of convenience in their favour‑Petition dismissed‑Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Ss. 21(2), (3), 22, 23, 27 do cls. (i) to (xii) of Sched. read with West Pakistan Water an i Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 25 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1.

Muhammad Daud Khan and others v. Government of West Pakistan and others P L D 1971 Lah. 462 ref.

Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st June 1973.

‑The petitioners have installed tube wells for irrigation of their agricultural lands situate in different villages of Wagah Sector. The respondent‑Authority has been supplying electricity to them for their tube‑wells for the last many years. At the time of sanctioning of the power supply, the respondent had agreed to levy energy charges at 8 Paisas per unit. The respondent‑Authority issued a new Schedule of Tariff by Notification No. 27840/A/Com/T‑86, dated the 15th July 1969, raising the charges to Rs. 8 per month plus unit charge for the electricity consumed at the rate of 4 Paisas per K. W. H. This rate was amended by notification dated the 9^th February 1970. The amount of fixed charge was reduced from Rs. 8 to Rs. 5 per K. W. of connected load per month and unit charge was raised from Paisas 4 to Paisas 6 per K. W. H. It is alleged that in this way, the petitioners were obliged to pay about double the amount than what they were paying previously for the consumption of electricity of their tube‑wells. The petitioners, in order to redress their grievances, filed a suit challenging the aforesaid Tariff issued under notification dated the 15th July 1969. Along with the petition, an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was made. The learned trial Judge passed an order of status quo but ultimately rejected the application for temporary injunction on the 12th November 1969. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on the 10th December 1969. This order was challenged in revision in the Lahore High Court, which was admitted for regular hearing. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision on the 6th June 1971. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.

Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and the Courts below should have issued a temporary injunction against the respondent‑Authority restraining them from charging the electricity charges at the enhanced rate. He further contended that under section 25 of Act XXXI of 1958, the respondent was not justified to raise the electricity charges. This aspect of the question was considered by the Lahore High Court to Muhammad Daud Khan and others v. Government of West Pakistan and others (P L D 1971 Lah. 462) and it was held that the WAPDA was competent to raise the rate of electricity charges under the above provisions of law. The learned counsel was unable to cite us any other decision on this point. Without expressing any opinion on the question under consideration, we would direct the petitioners to agitate this matter before the trial Court and to convince it of the correctness of their case. At present we are not satisfied that the petitioners had got a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is also not in their favour.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.