1989 PLP 4329 (MLD)

‑‑‑ B‑2‑‑Recovery of fixed charges‑‑Tariff B‑2 of WAPDA, held, did not authorise WAPDA to recover fixed charges for period, electricity supply remained disconnected to premises either on application of consumer or for any other reason but could be recovered when supply was connected. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below that demand of Authority for payment of electricity bill was illegal and void based on evidence on record and arrived at after applying conscious mind and giving sound reasons held, could not be interfered with when same were not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity. Hafiz Abdul Qayyum for Petitioner. On 1‑12‑1980 Saeed Ice Factory, through Sh. Izharul Haq filed suit against WAPDA through its Chairman, Lahore and Revenue Officer, WAPDA, Bahawalpur for declaration that the demand of WAPDA for payment of Rs. 29,040.09 through bill dated 14‑11‑1980, was illegal and void. As a consequential relief, it was prayed that the defendants therein be restrained from recovering the said amount. The suit was resisted whereupon 6 issues were framed. The parties led evidence in proof/disproof of the issues. Sh. Izharul Haq appeared as P.W.2. He produced Ghulam Harder P.W. 1 and tendered in evidence bills Ex. PI to PI

1. To rebut this evidence two witnesses namely Muhammad Tufail, Clerk, D.W. 1 and A.D. Raza, D.W.2 were produced. WAPDA/Petitioner also produced objection note Ex.DA made by Audit Inspection Party. A.D. Raza D.W.2 stated that the fix charges are levied for the reservation of the electricity supply to the premises of the consumer and are recoverable, ever if, the electricity supply is disconnected. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 27‑1‑1982. Feeling aggrieved thereby, WAPDA/Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, on 21‑4‑1985, hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since under clause 25 of the agreement between the parties, the dispute between them was to be referred to the Electrical Inspector for decision, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the petitioner/WAPDA can recover the fixed charges even during the period the electricity supply remains disconnected. Reliance has been placed on Tariff‑B‑2.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. An examination of clause 25 of the agreement shows that the dispute relating to the correctness o the meter could be referred to the Electrical Inspector, whereas in the present case, the dispute relates to the authority and entitlement of WAPDA to recover fixed charges for the periods the electricity supply remains disconnected to the premises. In this case there is no dispute that the electricity supply to the factory was not disconnected. Clause 25 of the agreement has no effect upon the competency of the Civil Court to entertain the matter in dispute. Tariff B‑2 does not authorize WAPDA to recover fixed charges for the period, the electricity supply to the premises remains disconnected. So far as I have been able to under I stand that the fixed charges may be recovered when the supply to the premises was very much connected and it does not cover the cases whore the electricity is disconnected on the application of the consumer or for any other supply reason. The Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the relevant sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions evidence and have given arrived at by them. The impugned judgments do not suffer from illegality or material irregularity. For what has been said above there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. H.B.T./W‑54/L