Find a Lawyer

[Lahore]

Writ Petitions Nos. 1345 and 1720 of 1984, decided on 27th May, 1985.

---Art. 9--Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Ss. 24 & 26-A--Show-cause notice, service of--No show -cause notice served upon licensee for removal of meter and for determination of amount for alleged unauthorized use of energy on account of slow functioning of meter--Requirement of law, held, not complied with--Issuance of demand notice and removal of meter was, therefore, of no legal consequence--Authority directed to pass fresh orders determining liability of licensee after giving full opportunity of showing cause to licensee.

Mst. Zainab v. Chief Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA and 2 others 1983 C L C 3314 and Firdaus Oil Mills v. WAPDA and another 1983 CLC. 2397 ref.

Ahmad Awais for Petitioner.

Ch.Muhammad Ishaq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th May, 1985.

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1345 and 1720 of 1984 as they , raise common questions of law and facts between the parties.

2. Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner, a consumer of electricity, supplied by respondent No.l, licensee. through these. Constitutional petitions calls in question the action of the licensee iv removing electric meter No.1252-464101-25 installed in the premises of his residential house situated in Street No. 5, Rajgarh, Lahore and a bill amounting to Rs.17,616.87 served upon him for payment for alleged slow functioning of the meter.

The petitioner claims that without notice to him officials of the respondent cut off the electric supply on 24-3-1984 and removed the aforesaid meter installed in his residential house.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent unauthorisedly and without associating the petitioner, prepared a detection bill for allegedly slow functioning of the meter and served upon him for payment. In support of his contention he relied on Mst. Zainab v. Chief Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA and 2 others 1983 CLC 3314 and Firdaus Oil Mills v. WAPDA and another 1983 CLC Lah. 3315 Dr. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry v. WAPDA and another 1983 CLC 2397 and Firdaus Oil Mills v. WAPDA and another 1983 C L C Lah. 3315. It w4s submitted that before determining the actual amount payable by the petitioner it was incumbent upon the licensee to have served the petitioner with a show-cause notice as envisaged under section 24 read with section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondents opposed these petitions and submitted that the petitioner was served with a notice, dated 12-2-1984 requiring him to disconnect electric supply within three days after the receipt of notice because he was using electric supply for industrial purpose although he was authorised to use the same for commercial purpose. This notice, according to learned counsel, was sufficient notice for removal of the meter and preparation of detection bill for slow functioning of the meter.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for l the parties and have perused the documents on the file. Admittedly no l show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner for removal of the meter and for determination of amount for allegedly unauthorised use l of energy on account of slow functioning of the meter. The requirement of law having been not complied with as held in the aforecited authorities of this Court, the actions of issuance of demand notice and removal of the meter are hereby declared to be of no legal consequence.

6. These petitions are accordingly accepted. The case shall be deemed; to be pending at the stage when notice, dated 12-2-1984 was served upon the consumer. The licensee shall halve to pass fresh order determining the liability after giving full opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

A . A .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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