1984 PLP 338 (MLD)

Mian Iqbal Khalid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1984. The petitioner Mill is a consumer of electricity being supplied by WAPDA. The meter installed on the premises of the Mill was checked by Technical Assistant to Chairman WAPDA, A.E. Detection, Meter Inspector and Inspector of Directorate of Complaints and Investigations on 3-3-1967 and was found that the meter had been tampered with and its seals were found to have been replaced by forged ones. On 6-3-1967, the meter was again inspected by XEN alongwith Meter Inspector who invited petitioner's staff to participate in the proceedings. Seal of detection was fixed on the meter in order to obviate the risk of more electricity being stolen. Consequently a demand notice, dated 3-5-1967 for Rs.23,710.79 calculated on the basis of probable consumption was issued by Assistant Director, Detection asking the petitioner Mill to make payment within ten days failing which disconnection of meter was threatened.

2. Petitioner aggrieved with the service of demand notice invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to declare the demand of Rs.23,710.79 illegal and to have been made without lawful authority. Report was called for and after its due consideration writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 30-1-1968. Since then it awaits adjudication.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was incorrect to state that M & T Seals pasted on the Electric Meter had been replaced by forged ones in order to show incorrect consumption of electricity. Learned counsel has contended that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner Mill to explain its position regarding the removal of genuine seals from the meter, nor was the owner of Mill associated in any inquiry preceding determination of dues by the respondent WAPDA. Learned counsel has pointed out that demand is based on clear malafides on the part of certain officials of the respondent. Previously also a demand for the payment of sum of 88.39,122.33 was made from the petitioner on' identical points. The petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No. 318 of 1967 against respondents wherein the said demand was similarly assailed against the respondent. The respondent, therefore, are trying to harass the petitioner time and again through these vexatious demands. Threat to disconnect electricity was also challenged on the basis of the alleged excessive demands of the respondent. While admitting writ petition to regular hearing, however disconnection was suspended subject to petitioner's furnishing security. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that the consumer had replaced the genuine seals with a view to bring within his powers to stop proper and correct running of the meter or reverse its readings as and when he chose. Since the actual consumption of electricity was not recorded by the meter due to the above act of the petitioner Mill it was necessary for respondent to assess the probable consumption of electricity therefore, the method adopted by respondent to assess probable consumption was rather fair and lenient.

4. Both the parties are at serious dispute on the basic factor as to the correctness of meter. Contention of the petitioner is that the meter was correct and seals had not been replaced and consequently the readings of the meter alone would determine the consumption of electri city. On the other hand contention of the respondent is that the seals had been replaced by forged one and the meter did not record the consumption of electricity correctly. Replacement of seals were found as a result of detection by the competent staff of WAPDA. However, it is admitted by both the parties that before determination of the dues culminating in demand, the petitioner Mill had not been associated in any mariner in the process of determination of dues. In case of such a dispute, between the parties the matter is to be resolved through statutory arbitration of the Electric Inspector, Government of Punjab as provided under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 which for facility of reference is reproduced below:- "(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electric Inspector, or by a competent person specially appointed by the Provincial Government in this behalf, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector or person, ceased to be correct, such Inspector or person shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time as the meter shall not in the opinion of such Inspector or person, have been correct and where matter has been decided by any person other than the Electric Inspector, an appeal shall lie to the Inspector, whose decision shall in every case be final; but, save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity: Provided that, before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electric inspector under this subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention to do."

5. In view of the statutory provisions relating to arbitration contained in, section 24(2) and section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the dispute as to the correctness of meter was to be referred to the Electric inspector for his decision. Instead of invoking the necessary arbitration, the petitioner has rushed to the High Court to quash the demand in its constitutional jurisdiction. The disputed matter could have been more appropriately resolved by the skilled and technical hands as provided under the Act. Writ petition, therefore, is accepted, demand of Rs.23,710.79 made by the respondent is quashed and the petitioner is directed to invoke statutory arbitration as provided under the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910 within a period of two months', from today. The Electric Inspector will endeavour to decide this old dispute expeditiously.

6. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. M.B.A. Petition accepted.