Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.565 of 1984, decided on 2nd April, 1985.

Electricity Act (Ix of 1910)--

---S. 26--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 181), Art.9--Dispute regarding electricity bills--Proper remedy- -Invocation of constitutional jurisdiction--Remedy provided under statute, held, must be availed before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Malik Mumtaz Akhtar for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh for Respondent.

Petitioner-Company consumer of electricity has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.82,847 on the basis of detection bill prepared by the officials of WAPDA. The bill is for slow running of the me'er by 11-05 per cent Demand has not been cleared. Instead, the action of the respondents in creating the demand for the above-said amount is seriously disputed on the grounds:-

(i) that it was barred by time;

(ii) that no notice as required by section 24 of the Electricity Act was served;

(iii) petitioner Company was not associated in the inquiry culminating in the demand;

(iv) Demand was without any basis and was mala fide.

Reply submitted on behalf of the respondents is on record wherein facts narrated in the constitution petition have been disputed.

Nature of the dispute raises factual inquiry which cannot properly be resolved in the absence of proper evidence. Forum chosen by the Company for decision of such a dispute is not appropriate. Other equally adequate and efficacious remedies are available. Forum is provided in the agreement reached between the parties and in section 26 of the Electricity Act. In case of dispute such as the one before this Court, the matter can be referred to the Arbitration of Electric Inspector. Petitioner-Company must avail of remedy provided under the Statute before it comes to invoke constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner-Company may now approach the named arbitrator within 14 A days from today. Electric Inspector after he is approached to perform his functions will decide the matter in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties affected by the decision of the WAPDA officials in creating the demand for the disputed amount. Learned counsel for the respondents also agreed that the respondent WAPDA had no objection to the proposed reference for the Arbitration of Electric Inspector. Since the petitioner-Company has a remedy available under the Statute, constitutional jurisdiction before exhausting the statutory remedy is not available. Petition in view of the observations made above stands disposed of.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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