WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE versus ANJUM TARIQ
Authorities removed the meter of the plaintiff, which was a consumer notification, under section 20 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 42, 54 and 55 of the Declaration, Prohibition and Mandatory Prohibition. And instead applied the second meter and handed over two bills the same day, one for electricity consumption and the other to the junior clerk, who was presented as a prosecution witness by authorities for the unlawful use of energy. The Chief clearly stated in his examination that there was no defect in this suit meter, before any action was taken against any person, it was considered under section 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910, to be given notice. Should. And any action on the backside of the user and without informing him shall be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was the claimant's right to issue notices or, at least at the time of removal of meters, the action related to respectable location The consumer should have checked the meter without notice was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the illegal trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appellate court dismissing the appeal filed by the authorities. The conclusions rendered by the trial court were based on the correct definition of the evidence concurring with the following two courts. It was pointed out by the prosecutor of the authorities for failing to read any misrepresentation or evidence that the two courts below had reached a harmonious scrutiny of the facts and based on the principles established by the law and the definition of evidence. Strictly considered, the conclusions that are reasonable will not be contested in the High Court's review jurisdiction.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
