1988 PLP 1374 (MLD)

The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that electric connection in the name of the petitioner has been disconnected by the respondents without due compliance with the provisions of section 24 of the Electricity Act i.e. without notice to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents being violative of mandatory provision of law and as such is without lawful authority. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing written statement. Their case was that Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir, landlord of the petitioner had already obtained electric connection prior to 1972 for his tube‑well to irrigate this land. Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents though name of the learned counsel for the respondents has been printed in the cause list, therefore, I proceed to decide this writ petition ex parte.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the respondents have placed on record copy of application submitted by the petitioner for obtaining electric connection in his name as Annexures JI/3 in which it has been clearly mentioned that electric connection was required in respect of land comprising Khasra number 1592 and according to respondents' own document copy of which has been attached as annexure J2/3 which is register Haqdaran, Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir was the owner of this Khasra number, therefore, no misrepresentation, about true facts were made for obtaining electric connection. It has been argued that according to document Annexure J3/3 appended with the written statement Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir gave it in writing that he would not have any objection if the petitioner was given electric connection for his tube‑well at his land, and the respondents having full knowledge that the petitioner was seeking electric connection for tube‑well on the land of Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir, gave the electric connection and the petitioner became their consumer as such he was to be dealt with in accordance with law and if his electric connection was to be discontinued it could only be done after issuing him notice as required under section 24 of the Electricity Act.

3. I have considered the arguments which have force. The respondents have placed on record certain notices issued to Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir in order to justify their action of disconnection of electric connection given to the petitioner and to establish that requirements of law were complied with. Since the petitioner was granted electric connection in his own name after he made it clear in his application that the electric connection was being obtained for a tube‑well on the land of Dr. Muhammad Afzal Nasir who in writing expressed his no objection to the grant of electric connection as such the notice required under section 24 should have been given to the petitioner who for all purposes is the consumer, regarding the electric connection in dispute. Admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioner in this respect to show cause against the impugned action. The provision of section 24 of the Electricity Act having not been complied with, therefore, the action of the respondents of disconnection of electric energy to the tube‑well of the petitioner being contrary to law cannot be sustained. This writ petition succeeds. It is accepted. The action of disconnection of supply of electric energy to the tube‑well of the petitioner is hereby declared to have been taken, as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner without loss of time. There will however be no order as to cots. H.B.T./N‑147/L Petition accepted.