Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. K‑24 to 27, 34 of 1983 and K‑335 of 1982, decided on 26th January, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 22‑11‑1982 passed in Constitutional Petition No. 699/80)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S. 24 [as amended by Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance (LXII of 1979))‑‑Discontinuance of electric supply‑‑Demand of additional security deposit from consumers‑ Leave granted to consider question of law of general public importance; viz. (i) whether in view of amendments effected in Electricity Act, 1910 by means of Ordinance LXII of 1979, in terms whereof power to disconnect electricity which previously was given in case in which security had become invalid or insufficient, was now restricted only to cases in which it had become invalid, it was open to Electric Supply Company to discontinue supply of electricity on ground that security had become insufficient; (11) that whether clause 10 of Agreement between parties provides justification in law to Electric Supply Company to enable it to demand additional security; (iii) that whether in any event provisions of clause 10, as interpreted by Electric Supply Company could prevail over statutory provisions; and (iv) whether S.24 of Electricity Act, 1910 was correctly interpreted by High Court in holding that said provision supported action of Electric Supply Company

Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Noorul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1983.

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J

.‑‑These six petitions for special leave to appeal arise out of a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Sind High Court, dated 22‑11‑1982 and therefore, this order will cover all the six petitions.

2. The petitioners are companies owning and operating Textile Mills at Karachi, and for the supply of electricity, had entered into separate agreements with the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited (K.E.S.C.) respondent No. 1 herein. According to the terms of the said agreements, each petitioner was required to deposit in each with the K.E.S.C., a certain amount of money mentioned in the agreement, by way of security. In pursuance to this stipulation each petitioner had deposited the sum as agreed. However, subsequently by a notice, each petitioner was directed to deposit additional sum of money, purportedly by way of additional security on the ground that the existing security furnished by each had become insufficient. By means of further notice the K.E.S.C. threatened disconnection of the supply of electricity in the event the additional security deposit, as demanded, was not paid within 7 days. The petitioners protested with the K.E.S.C. against the aforesaid demand but finding no satisfactory response, ultimately filed Constitutional Petitions challenging the alleged illegal demands. These petitions were then heard together and dismissed as per the judgment, dated 22‑11‑1982.

3. After hearing Mr. Khalid Anwar, Advocate we feel that the following questions of law of general public importance arise for consideration in these petitions:

(i) Whether in view of the amendments effected in the Electricity Act, 1910 by means of Ordinance No. LXII of 1979 in terms whereof the power to disconnect the electricity which previously was given in cases in which security had become invalid or insufficient was now restricted only to cases in which it had become invalid, it was open to K.E.S.C. to discontinue the supply of electricity on the ground that the security had become insufficient

(ii) Whether clause 10 of the Agreement between the parties provides justification in law to K.E.S.C. to enable it to demand additional security

(iii) Whether in any event the provisions of clause 10, as interpreted by K . E. S. C . can prevail over the statutory provisions

(iv) Whether section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 has been correctly interpreted by the High Court in holding that this provision supports the impugned action of the K.E.S.C.

4. Leave is accordingly granted in all these petitions. Security for costs in each case shall be Rs.2,000. Subject to the decisions in these cases, the petitioners have no objection to deposit in Court the amount equal to sum demanded by the K.E.S.C. by way of additional security in each case. In fact this was the arrangement under the interim orders passed by the High Court. Counsel for both parties agreed to the same arrangement and further that the K.E.S.C. would be entitled to withdraw the money thus deposited in Court upon furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court of Sind. We, therefore, order accordingly, by way of interim arrangement until the decision of these appeals.

5. In view of the nature of the controversy in these cases, we further direct that if possible these appeals shall be prepared and fixed within six months.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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