1999 PLP 1158 (MLD)

KWH 419612 x 160 MDI 15 x 160 The units recorded on the above basis carried over a month's period as well as the recording at the premises after 1st June, 1998 uptill 16th June, 1998 carried over a month's averaged out to be around 12 lac units with maximum demand of 2400 K.W. at the Grid meter and 3144 K.W. at the premises showing an appreciable increase after securing the Grid meters. The consumer furnished an undertaking to the effect of above observations showing willingness to pay for the loss of WAPDA. " It is next submitted that the petitioner gave an undertaking admitted the contents of the above said report and agreed to pay the detection bill and accordingly bill was prepared and it is on the application of the petitioner that he was allowed four instalments to pay the amount of the detection bill and that the petitioner once having deposited the one instalment he cannot resile from his undertaking as laid down in Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and that the action of the Checking Committee is supported from the consumption data and that the XEN Shahdara was also involved in the theft and that the Police without taking documentary and oral evidence of the WAPDA has exonerated the petitioner and that the S.S.P. is being contacted for reinvestigation and that even if the accused is absolved of the criminal liability the civil liability stands against him. On merits, the grounds taken by the petitioner were denied and reiterated that the criminal case was rightly got registered as the energy was being stolen as was found by the Checking Committee and that the S.S.P. is being contacted for re-investigation and that once the petitioner has got instalments of the detection bill, he is bound to pay the full detection bill and cannot resile from his undertaking.

4. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the sides and have gone through the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties and` even got the valuable assistance from the Chief Executive, L. E.S,C.O. to come to a just conclusion.

5. The basis of charging the detection bill is stated to be the actual consumption recorded by the consumption meter from 1-6-1998 to 16-6-1998 after scrutiny on 1-6-1998 and the consumption recorded by meter from 15-6-1998 to 16-6-1998 installed at the Grid after its proper scrutiny on 15-6-1998 as 36,000,00 units out of which 27,31,500 units have already been debited and the amount paid. The disputed units are alleged to be 8,68440 as per respondents while according to the petitioners there is not a single unit consumed by him nor he has committed any forgery or theft. The documents placed on record from both the sides show that on criminal side, the action was initiated but at the investigation stage, that could not be established. The said investigation was verified by the S.D.P.O. It is on the record that the respondents initiated action against the XEN departmentally and even against the Investigating Agency by moving the competent Authorities.

6. On the other hand, the petitioner has protested the action at every stage and has also filed this petition.

7. I was inclined to refer the matter to the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 but the petitioner alleged that seven days notice by either party of his intention to refer the matter to the Electric Inspector has not been given and, thus, an illegality has been committed and that now when a right has been vested in him by the illegality committed by the respondents, it would be unjust and that the writ petition merits to be allowed when the respondents have failed on legal plane. It has further been submitted that the factors like Sundays and Gazetted holidays, load-shedding and other hazards and impossibility of running the mill round the clock have not been taken into consideration at the time of assessment of the actual consumption. The assessment has been made against the petitioner on mere presumption.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that whatever has been done, it has been done according to law and that there is no malice or mala fide on the part of the respondents.

9. The petitioner was ready to get the matter decided on the oath of Mr. Sarfraz, the Executive Engineer while the department was ready to get it decided on the oath of Mr. Javed Aziz, the Superintending Engineer. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has never committed theft in the, past and has been paying the electricity bills in time.

10. Both the parties admit that there were two furnaces, there is no dispute about one furance running continuously and there is also no dispute that there were gazetted holidays as under:-- March, 1998 Sundays 5 Gazetted holidays 2 April, 1998 Sundays 4 Gazetted holidays 4 May, 1998 Sundays 5 Gazetted holidays 23 days) Working days: (69) There is no denial about the load-shedding. There is also no denial that due to disconnection with effect from 16-6-1998 to 10-7-1998 the petitioner has suffered loss of production and the respondents of energy sale.

11. Taking into consideration all the above admitted factors and circumstances it seems just and equitable that the petitioner and the Department should bear the responsibility equally being vicariously liable. Accordingly, the petitioner is held responsible for the consumption of 434220 units for running the furance during the admitted working period and is held liable to pay Rs.16,68,698 as detection bill out of which the petitioner has already deposited Fs.8,34,349 as per receipt mark ' A' which deposit is also admitted by the respondents. Regarding the remaining amount of Rs.8,34,349 the petitioner requests for six equal instalments while the respondents insists on two equal instalments. It is ordered that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.8,34,349 in four equal instalments at the rate of Rs.2,08,562.25 per month alongwith the current bill and all the actions and proceedings against each other by both the parties including the XEN shall stand withdrawn.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./I-64/L Order accordingly