1986 PLP 680 (MLD)

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points:

‑ (i) That no show‑cause notice was issued by the respondents before determining the liability of the petitioner; (ii) that the petitioner was not associated at the time of checking of the matter and calculation of the units; (iii) that the impugned bill has been issued as a result of ex parte and male fide proceedings; and (iv) that the disputed amount is not at all due from the petitioner. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents raised the following points: (i) that under Article 15(2) of the P.C.O., 1981 and section 19(2) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, the writ petition is not maintainable; (ii) that, in fact, the petitioner had tempered with the meter by way of theft; (iii) that, in fact,' the petitioner had fixed a bogus M & T seal after breaking and removing the original seal fixed by the respondents.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have gone through the material available before me. I find that admittedly no show‑cause notice was issued before determining the liability of the petitioner and the petitioner was not associated at the time of checking of the meter and the calculation of the disputed units. Section 20 of the Electricity Act reads as under: "Section

20. Power for licensee to enter premises and to remove fitting or other apparatus of licensee. (1) A licensee or any person duly authorised by a licensee may, at any reasonable time and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter any premises to which energy is or has been supplied by him, for the purpose of:‑ (a) ............................................................... (b) ascertaining the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply; or (c) ..............................................................." It is thus very much clear that the respondents were required to inform the occupier of their intention to enter the premises in order to ascertain the amount of energy supplied. It is, now, well‑settle that before creating a charge against a consumer on account of electric energy consumed but not accounted for, service of show‑cause notice is a condition precedent and that before preparing a 'detection bill' on account of unaccounted for consumed electric energy, it is necessary on the part of the WAPDA to associate the consumer at the time of the checking and calculation of the units and afford him an opportunity to meet the charge of theft/tampering with the meter. Reference may be made to case law reported as 1983 C L C 2397; 1983 C L C 3314 and 1983 C L C 3315. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the preparation and issuance of the impugned 'detection bill' being illegal, unwarranted, ex parte and arbitrary, was without lawful authority. Coming to the points raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that since the vires of any Act or Ordinance, has not been challenged in the writ petition, this Court is fully competent to entertain and adjudicate this petition in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

5. For what has been stated above, it is, hereby, declared that the impugned detection bill' was prepared and issued without lawful authority and is of no legal consequences.

6. Needless to add that the decision shall not preclude the respondents from preparing and issuing fresh bill of detection, in accordance with law. H.B.T.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Writ issued.