2006 PLP 38 (YLR)
and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 38 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain, J |
| Parties | and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 38 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 38 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 38 (YLR) (and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
- 2. Whereas the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that such reference was maintainable under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 for which there was no limitation; the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Law Officer is that under the law only appeal was competent before the Advisory Board, which was time-bared.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 38
Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Ss.24 & 26
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Respondent had made an application under S.38, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority Act, 1997 and Ss.24 & 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, which was disposed of by the Electric Inspector of the Provincial Government
WAPDA (petitioners), feeling aggrieved by the order of Electric Inspector made a reference to the Government of the Province/Advisory Committee under S.26(6), Electricity Act, 1910, which was dismissed
Contention of WAPDA was that such a reference was maintainable under S.26(6), Electricity Act, 1910 for which there was no limitation while the official respondent contended that under the law appeal was competent only before the Advisory Board, which was time barred
Record showed that matter was put up before the Board and it was noted that "appeal had been filed after expiry of 90 days" and on that the Chairman, Advisory Board proceeded to record the order "Not admitted being time-barred. May inform the appellant accordingly. "
Tenor of the order itself showed that neither the appellant nor his counsel was present when such an order was recorded
None was heard before passing of the said order
Without, therefore, adverting to the question as to whether it was a "reference" or "appeal" one thing that stood out conspicuously established was that the petitioners/ WAPDA were condemned unheard in the matter
WAPDA (petitioners) should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing as their case was that for a reference, law did not provide any limitation
High Court remitted the matter to the Department with direction to proceed with the reference/appeal and to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously. Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay. Muhammad Yunis. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab. Muhammad Yaqoob, Director Technical (Power) Member Advisory Board. Muhammad Yaseen, Electric Inspector, Gujranwala. Nazir Ahmed, S.D.O.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
Respondent No.1 herein, had made an application under section 38 of National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Act, 1997 and sections 24 and 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 which was disposed of by the Electric Inspector, Government of Punjab, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala vide order dated 22-12-2004. Feeling aggrieved thereof the petitioners made a reference to the Government of Punjab/Advisory Committee under section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910, which stand dismissed through the impugned order dated 10-6-2005. This has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Whereas the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that such reference was maintainable under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 for which there was no limitation; the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Law Officer is that under the law only appeal was competent before the Advisory Board, which was time-bared.
3. The perusal of the order impugned shows that on 10-6-2005 the matter was put up before the Board and it was noted that "Appeal has been filed after expiry of 90 days". On that the Chairman, Advisory Board proceeded to record the order "Not admitted being time-barred. May inform the appellant accordingly". The tenor of the order itself shows that neither the appellant nor his counsel was present when such an order was recorded. None was heard before passing of the said order. Without therefore even adverting to the question as to whether it was a "reference" or "appeal", one thing that stands out conspicuously is that the petitioners were condemned unheard in the matter. The petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing as their case is that for a "reference", law did not provide any limitation. Accordingly by declaring order dated 10-6-2005 the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 who may entrust the matter to the authority competent to dispose of the matter which A will proceed with the reference/appeal and to decide the same in accordance with law. With the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties it is observed that the authority who may be entrusted with this matter by respondent No.2, will proceed to hear and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly. M.B.A./W-45/L Order accordingly.