1996 PLP 1636 (CLC)

3. The appellant challenged the 'demand by filing the Constitutional petition which as already observed was dismissed by the learned Single Judge who was of the view that inter se arrangement between partners of the firm was not binding on WAPDA and the appellant being jointly and severally liable to pay the disputed amount could not avoid its liability on the plea that the factory at Bhati Pheru had fallen to the shares of the other partners.

4. In support of this appeal Mr. A. Karim Malik learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as a result of dissolution of the firm the assets were divided between the partners in the year 1972 and while the factory at Pattoki continued to remain with the appellant the other ice factory situated in Bhai Pheru fell to the share of Nawab Begum and Khurshid Begum who changed the name of the factory to Bismillah Ice Factory and they were liable to pay for the electricity consumed in the said factory after 1972. In this respect learned counsel referring to the two letters sent by the appellant and letter dated 2‑4‑1977 of the XEN, has contended that the dissolution of partnership and distribution of assets was brought to the notice of the respondents who had asked Bismillah Ice Factory to have the connection changed in its name and as such the appellant could not be saddled with any liability in respect of electricity consumed by the said concern. Learned counsel has further contended that in any case disconnection of the premises without any notice in terms of section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was without jurisdiction.

5. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal by arguing that as the order of disconnection was appealable under section 24 of the Electricity Act as‑amended by Punjab Act of 1971 before the Electricity Inspector, this Intra‑Court Appeal is not competent. Mr. Khan Muhammad Virk learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has also joined to this objection. On merits it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the connections were continued in the name of the' Firm all of its partners were jointly and severally liable to pay the bill.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that this appeal is bound to succeed on the short ground that the appellant's electric connection could not have been disconnected b<< respondents without serving a notice upon the appellant, as per section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 as was amended by the Electricity Act (Punjab) Amendment Ordinance (XXIX of 19711.

7. It is obvious from a reading of this provision that if a consumer "neglects" to pay any charges for the energy consumed by him the licensee is required to give a notice of not less than 7 days in writing to the consumer and it is only when no payment is made despite the service of the notice and expiry of the period mentioned therein that the electric supply can be disconnected. The service of such a notice according to the very wording of the section is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under section 24 by the licensee. Admittedly WAPDA is a licensee within the meaning of Electricity Act, 1910 as provided in section 2 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, 8‑ It is by now well‑settled that the provisions as fegards issuance of notices are mandatory and must be strictly and faithfully complied with, See Ata Muhamamd Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1971 SC 61). While interpreting section 24 of Electricity Act it was held in John Earnest Edward etc v. Rai Jogendra Chandra Ghose Bahadur (AIR 1935 Calcutta 298) that service of notice under section 24 was imperative notwithstanding that there may be a provision in the agreement for supply of electricity that no such notice need be served before disconnecting the premises. The Calcutta High Court emphasis that notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement the disconnection can only take place after notice under section 24 has been served upon the consumer. It may also be observed that the power under section 24 is drastic in nature because as a result of the action taken therein the consumer is deprived of electricity which is a necessity of life, Consequently a strict compliance of the provisions of section 24 of Electricity Act, ' 1910 must be insisted upon as ruled in Nagpur Corporation v. N.E.L. and P. Company (AIR 1958 Bombay 498).

9. In the present case admittedly no notice under section 24 was issued by the respondents before proceeding to disconnect the electric connection. Mr. Khan Muhammad Virk, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as the endorsement on the bill itself shows that in case of non‑payment the electric supply shall be disconnected, no separate notice was needed to have been issued and the requirement of section 224 was fully met in. ,

10. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent and the contention raised by him is negated by the very wording of the section itself. On a bare reading of section 24 it becomes obvious that in the first instance a demand should be made by the licensee for the payment of a specified sum of B money by a specified date. If the consumer neglects to pay the amount demanded then the lincensee is required to issue a notice calling upon the consumer to pay the amount within a period which should not be less than 7 days and also inform the consumer that in the event of non‑payment of the amount the electric connection would be disconnected. The issuance of the electric bill is in the nature of demand for the payment of amount of the bill and it is only when the consumer fails to pay the same by the due date that it can be said that he has neglected to clear his liability, that the question of service of notice of disconnection only arises once the failure to pay the amount has taken place and cannot precede it. On the plain wording of section 24, therefore, the contention that while . making the first demand which is generally done by issuing the electricity bill a notice under section 24 can also be sent by making an endorsement on the bill cannot be accepted. In Firdous Oil Mills WAPDA and another (1978 CLR 142 (Lahore) this Court held that disconnecting of electric connection without service of 10 days' notice under clause (6) of the Schedule of Electricity Act, 1910 was without lawful authority.

11. The service of notice under section 24 is also essential for another reason which is under section 24(2) of the Electricity Act as amended by Electricity Act (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1971 that any person aggrieved of the service of notice under subsection (1) has a right to file an appeal before the Electric Inspector. Therefore, if no notice under section 24 is served upon the consumer he will be deprived 'of his right to file an appeal. That being so we are unable to accept the contention that the electricity could be discontinued without serving a notice in terms of section 24 of the Act.

12. So far as the objection as to ‑ the maintainability of this appeal is concerned, suffice it to say that the question of filing an appeal would only arise if a notice under section 24 has been served upon the appellant. In the present case admittedly the connection was disconnected without service of any such notice and as such nor right of appeal was available to the appellant inasmuch as under subsection (2) of section 24 an appeal against the notice issued lies and not after the disconnection of premises.

13. In the above view of the matter we have considered is unnecessary to deal with the contentions raised by the appellant that the appellant has no liability to pay the disputed amount in view of the dissolution of firm and distribution of assets. In view of what has been stated above, we allow the appeal and declare that the action of the respondents in disconnecting the electric connection of the appellant without. serving any notice under section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910 is of no legal authority. A.A./P‑7/L Appeal accepted