WAPDA THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE PESCO, PESHAWAR versus MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN
Section 20, Special Claims Act (I of 1877), Claims 42, 54 and 55 of the suit, received the plaintiff on the charge of tampering with the seal of the electric meter bill for a permanent, mandatory and prohibited injunction which caused the tampering. Some fines were also shown. With the seal of the electric meter, another bill was subsequently sent by the authorities to the plaintiff, which raised the amount of the bill. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said bill, declaring the bill illegal, collective and against the rules and regulations. Was ordered to do. The order was upheld by the trial court and by the appellate court. The alleged investigation of the meter was made on the back of the plaintiff, nor was he given notice, nor was he involved in the alleged meter inspection. Under the law, the claimant had the right to remain associated with the meter investigation because the Electricity Act. , Under section 20 of 1, no one should be a judge of his purpose. The owner of the 910 premises was entitled to a notice before checking the meter, which was lacking in the case, and any action taken by Wapda officials on consumer absence and violation of Section 20 of the Electricity Act 1910 would be illegal. And without jurisdiction, the two courts below recorded consolidated searches of facts, which were based on accurate definitions of evidence and the dates available on file could not be rendered useless, unless it was shown that they were either misleading or False concurrent decisions and injunctions are as follows: Being the Reef principles, can not interfere with the review by the court, the defendants from any misrepresentation or
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
