ASSISTANT MANAGER OPERATION PESCO versus MINA FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD.
Articles 26 (6) and 26 of the Inquiry Bill Civil Court's jurisdiction of the consumer was that the matter was related to a defect found in the meter suit, as well as the accuracy consumers challenged the accuracy and accuracy of the tracking bill. Was released on. Based on the laboratory report, the meter was checked in the presence of the user and it was charged according to the electricity rules due to theft of electricity as per the previous months total units were paid for the dispute. Rather it was related to energy theft. The jurisdiction of the meter inspector was limited to disputes related to matters under section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act 1910 when the accuracy of the dispute for the power consumption of meters, maximum demand indicators or other measuring devices. Was related to Referring to the electric inspector on a dispute between the parties was referred to the meter which was detected by the laboratory tests of Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. And the civil court was beyond the jurisdiction to draw conclusions on the issue, which was declared decisive by both courts through an electric inspector. The jurisdiction decided by the two courts was not in them and the affected decisions were without jurisdiction, the plaintiff was returned to the appropriate forum for treatment and a review of the circumstances was accepted.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
