2003 PLP 598 (CLC)

4. Malik Haider Jamal, Advocate counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was served with a notice as on checking his premises the meter was found tampered with. He produced before me photo copy of notice which was according to him served upon the petitioner. It was further argued by him that the meter was removed after complying with the provisions of section 26‑A of the Electricity Act and that F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner as he was found stealing electricity by tampering the meter.

5. Arguments heard writ petition, its annexures, attested copy of the order of Electric Inspector, dated 3‑8‑2002 and photo copy of notice issued on 3‑8‑2002 by respondent No.3, perused.

6. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which have been stated hereinbefore regarding allegations against the respondents are mentioned in the writ petition which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents did not deny that on the same allegation a criminal case was also previously registered against the petitioner which was contested by the respondents and the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the said case. Filing of complaint against the respondents, regarding a previous detection bill issued by the respondents and verdict given thereon by the Electric Inspector is also not denied by him. Although the learned counsel for the respondents asserted that meter was removed after service of notice in accordance with law but he did not produce anything in black and white to show as to on which date the meter was removed hence in the absence of any rebuttal on that point, contention of the petitioner that meter was removed on 2‑8‑2002 appears to be correct.

7. A perusal of photo copy of notice produced by the respondents' counsel shows that it was issued on 3‑8‑2002. It is mentioned therein 'that premises of the petitioner were checked on 2‑8‑2002 and it was found that meter was tampered with. In this notice the petitioner was required to explain within seven days of the receipt of notice as to why detection/assessment bill as per provisions of section 26‑A of Electricity Act should not be charged and he was also requested to associate with the Detection Committee with all relevant record in connection with e preparation of detection bill.

8. Photo copy of this notice simply shows that it was issued of 3‑8‑2002. Notice was produced in support of the assertion that it was also served on the petitioner, however, relevant record showing service of the petitioner which in the ordinary course, should be with the respondents was not produced. On top of the photo copy of the notice the word "Registered" is written. No receipt issued by the post office was produced to show that it was also delivered in the post office for transmission to the petitioner.

9. Last but not the least in the said notice the petitioner was not called upon to show cause as to why his premises should not be disconnected and the meter should not be removed. He was simply asked to explain as to why detection, assessment bill should not be charged from him.

10. It was therefore, amply clear that the premises was disconnected and meter was removed on 2‑8‑2002 before the issuance of notice and secondly the notice did not relate to disconnection or removal of meter.

11. Now coming to the detection bill Annexure‑J. date of its issue is 16‑8‑2002. It as already been observed hereinbefore that service of notice was not proved, according to which he was directed to show cause against the issuance of detection bill and was also requested to associate with the Detection Committee with all the relevant record in connection with preparation of the detection bill.

12. The detection bill was, therefore, obviously prepared without service of notice on the petitioner and without his association in the Detection Committee. Nothing was produced to show that the petitioner had associated with the Detection Committee.

13. It is also not disclosed in the detection bill as to on what basis it was prepared and to which period it relates.

14. The premises were disconnected and meter was removed on 2‑8‑2002 when the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents was pending before the Electric Inspector. Attested copy of the decision of the Electric Inspector on that complaint shows that no objection was raised by the respondents before the Electric Inspector that meter of the petitioner was tampered with. The said complaint was decided on 3‑8‑2002 wherein it is held that detection bill issued by the respondents was not justified.

15. After the said decision, on the same day, another F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No.3, with the same allegation. From the facts and circumstances it, therefore, appears that the action of respondents Nos.3 a d 5 respectively in disconnecting the premises removing the meter, lodging the F.I.R. and issuing the detection bill are without notice to the petitioner, against the mandatory provisions of law, without justification and without lawful authority.

16. Consequently the writ petition is accepted and F.I.R. No. 148, dated 3‑8‑2002 registered at Police Station Chhab Kalan, District Khanewal under section 39‑A of the Electricity Act, against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

17. Respondents are directed to reconnect the petitioner's premises and to re‑instal the meter forthwith.

18. The case shall be deemed to be pending at the stage of notice, dated 3‑8‑2002 which shall be served on the petitioner in accordance with law whereafter the respondents shall have to pass fresh order determining the liability after giving full opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. H.P.T Petition accepted,