Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ S. 24‑Disconnection of electric supply ‑ Service of notice Prerequisite ‑ Covering letter and supplementary bill served on consumer clearly pointing out date of payment of bill as. 1st August, 1982 and Electric Supply. Corporation admitting that electric supply should not have been disconnected before 8th August, 1982 which date yet to arrive‑Action of Corporation not found in accordance with law‑Status quo ante, ordered, in circumstances.

Hassan A. Shaikh for Plaintiff.

S. M. Jawed for Defendant.

The plaintiff Noor Muhammad who is a proprietor of Taj Factory situated in Federal "B" Area, Karachi has filed this suit against the defendant Electric Supply Company. He was allotted, account No. 55660514 and consumer No. A. P-1469 by 'the Company. The factory obtained supply from sub‑station of the defendant company situated in Federal " B" Area. The defendant )company has also installed meters inside the compound of the factory.

2. On 14th July, 1982 some persons from the staff of the defendant company visited the premises of the plaintiff's factory without any prior notice and disconnected electric supply in spite of the protests of the plaintiff's manager: This action of the staff of the defendant necessitated this suit for declaration. The plaintiff has claimed that he had been regularly paying the bills received by him from the defendant and had never been a defaulter. As such action of the defendant company in cutting off electric connection is null and void. He has, therefore, prayed that the defendant company be directed to restore the connection and to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per day due to loss sustained by the plaintiff as a result of closure of the factory.

3. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff has also filed injunction application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 being C. M. A. No. 2679/82 praying that the defendant may be directed to restore the electricity. The suit and the application were filed on 20th July, 1982.

4. On the same day notice of the injunction application was ordered to be issued to the defendant. The notice was served at 12‑00 noon on 20th July, 1982. After. service of the notice on 20th July, 1982 the defendant company delivered a covering letter to the plaintiff dated 18th/20th July, 1982. Enclosed with this letter was a supplementary bill dated 18th July; 1982 for an amount of Rs. 4,48,241.51 purporting to be for consumption of electricity from July, 1979 to June, 1982. The due date for payment of the amount of this bill was described as 1st August, 1982. Below this printed bill was an endorsement purporting to be notice to the consumer to the effect that "Supply will be disconnected if payment ‑is not received within 7 days of due date". This supplementary bill alongwith a covering letter was produced by the plaintiff alongwith his additional affidavit ,because it was received after the filing of the suit.

5. The defendant company teas contested the claim of the plaintiff in the counter‑affidavit filed by its Senior Assistant Syed Mukhtar Naqvi in which‑it has been alleged as under :‑

"That an inspection was carried out on 11th July, 1982 by our field staff of the plaintiff's factory premises and it was observed that maximum demand needle was stuck up at zero. Main cover‑seal of the electric meter was not original. Evidently. it was tampered and of a doubtful nature". It is therefore, alleged that the electricity was disconnected under section 13 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The covering letter and the supplementary bill received by plaintiff on 20th July, 1982 has not been denied. The main contention of Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, is that under section 24 of the Electricity Act (hereinafter, referred‑4o as the said Act) no disconnection of the electricity supply can be effected without 7 days statutory notice to the consumer; it is, therefore, claimed that the action of the defendant company in. disconnecting the supply was in violation of section 24 of the said Act and as such it was null and void and hence the plaintiff was entitled, even at the interim stage, to get the electric connection restored. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the plaintiff has been responsible for theft of electricity and as such no prior notice was necessary before disconnecting electric supply, as section 13 of said Act would be attracted in such case, which did not provide for any notice. It may be stated that section 13 of the said Act is not relevant to the present case. This section pertains to notice for new works and does not pertain to theft of electricity or to tampering with electric meters. In fact his reference is to section 13 of the Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance 1979 whereby the schedule of the said Act has been amended: By this amendment . second proviso of clause (VI) of sub‑clause (1) has been amended to provide that the company shall be entitled to discontinue electric supply if the consumer has broken or tampered with meter. This proviso forms part of the printed licence which is issued to tire company. In fact the entire schedule to the said Act relates to the provisions which are incorporated in the licence which is granted to an electric supply company. The only provision in the said Act relating to dis connection is section 24 only which provides that 7 days' notice t the consumer is prerequisite to disconnecting the electric supply. The covering letter and the supplementary bill which has been produced by the plaintiff with his affidavit, as well as by the defendant's officer with his counter‑affidavit, clearly point out that the due date of the payment of the supplementary bill is 1st August, 1982. This supplementary bill further puts the plaintiff on notice that Electric Supply Company shall disconnect the supply if the amount is not paid within 7 days. Thus from the admission of the defendant company itself, it is prima facie proved that the electric supply to the plaintiff company could not have been disconnected before 8th of August, 1982 which date is yet to arrive. From their own pleading the defendant company has prima facie shown that the action of disconnecting the supply was not in accordance with law. The hasty action of the defendant company in deliver in the covering letter and the supplementary bill after the filing of the suit, makes it clear that the defendant company realised the prim facie illegality in effecting disconnection without prior notice to .the plaintiff. It would be pertinent to refer to a significant portion of the covering letter which reads as under :‑

" In view of your above undertaking and on advance payment of Rs.‑‑‑‑against the supplementary bill to be issued if any, we have reconnected your supply on‑‑‑." Although this letter was originally dated 18th July, 1982 but it was despatched on 20th July, 1982 as is evident from the date put on the letter itself. From the above it would appear that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and that action of the defendant company was not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The bar of jurisdiction under section 5,4‑C as pleaded by the learned counsel for the defendant, shall also not be available because prima facie the action of the defendant was not under the said Act.

6. The plaintiff's application is therefore allowed and it is directed that status quo ante, as it existed before disconnection of electric supply/ to the plaintiff's factory, shall be maintained pending disposal of the suit, subject to the plaintiff's furnishing bank guarantee for payment of the supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 4,48,241.51 in case the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

M. Y M. Application disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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