2002 PLP 1118 (MLD)

TASSADUQ RUSSIAN JILLANI, J.‑‑‑The appellant WAPDA has challenged the order, dated 9‑9‑1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide which he accepted respondent's writ petition and directed the parties to appear before the Electric Inspector and the latter was directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. The direction preceded an observation/verdict to the effect that the action of the appellant in disconnecting the electricity of respondent‑consumer was illegal and without lawful authority.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was issued a detection bill for the theft of electricity and the method used by the respondent for stealing electricity did not involve the A metering equipments, and therefore, the case should not have been referred to the Electric Inspector in view of the law laid down in WAPDA v. Mian Muhammad Riaz (PLD 1995 Lah. 56).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the allegation levelled by the appellant WAPDA did relate to the metering equipments, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber is unexceptional. 4.???????? Heard.

5. The appellant has reproduced a part of the report of Team/Committee which checked the meter. In para.3 of appeal which is as under:‑‑ "KWH and MDI Meter was prevented to register energy by artificial means by using specially made instrument. Body of transformer was short‑circuited with blue phase internally. Body of transformer through solid copper wire was connected to one phase point of instrument. Second supply point of instrument was connected to blue phase of supply side of consumer. Third supply point of instrument was connected to supply side of Blue phase of consumer. Supply to instrument was controlled by electrical make/break switch installed on main panel. By making the switch on main KWH and MDI meter was stopped to register energy accurately. KWH and MDI was found 89.44% slow."

6. A bare perusal of the afore‑referred report would indicate that the respondent had allegedly used the instrument/wire which caused interference with the metering equipment, in consequence of which the electricity which was consumed by respondent was not correctly reflected in the meter. That being so, the case of the respondent squarely fell within the ambit of section 26(6) of the Electricity Act and the Electric Inspector has the jurisdiction to decide. Even otherwise, under the new dispensation i.e. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority the Electric Inspector has been given vast powers to look into issues which are subject‑matter of this appeal. In the afore‑referred circumstances we do not find the, order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber insofar as it remanded the case to the Electric Inspector as exceptional. However, with regard to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Chamber qua the vires of the act of the appellant in disconnecting the electricity supply we direct that the Electric Inspector while deciding the matter shall consider whatever evidence parties wish to adduce and decide it strictly on merit un?influenced by the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber. He shall do so within 3 months of the filing of the application made by respondent. Respondent may apply to the Electric Inspector within 15 days failing which the law shall take its own course. Needless to observe the amount deposited by respondent shall be subject to the order to be passed by the Electric Inspector. Disposed of. H.B.T./W‑53/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.