1986 PLP 1255 (CLC)

S.M. Nurul Hassan for Respondent. Liaquat Merchant, Dy. A.‑G. on Courts. Notice. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1986. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondent refusing to give electricity connection to the Petrol Pump run by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted a Plot No. 39‑B, Sunset Boulevard Phase 11, measuring 1333 square yards for a total consideration of Rs.13,38,299.20. The petitioner paid the entire amount. While the construction of the Petrol Pump was in progress the respondent filed declaratory Suit No. 132 of 1984 before this Court in which he claimed that in the year 1962 the respondent was allotted Plot No. 39‑B, measuring 30025 square yards for the purpose of construction of Grid Station and the plot leased out to the petitioner is part and parcel of his plot. An application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 was also filed praying therein that the petitioner be restrained from raising construction in the said plot. However, the petitioner was allowed to complete the construction of the petrol pump on an area of 1333 square yards at his own risk and cost. The petitioner applied to the respondent for giving electricity connection to the petitioner and when he obtained permission through P.B.S. from the Government of Sind to use electric energy temporarily the respondent started putting hurdles in the smooth running of the business of the petitioner. The petitioner made number of applications and approached each and every person including the Managing Director of K.E.S.C. but the respondent has not given connection to the petitioner. In the comments filed by the respondent the allegations of the petitioner have been denied and s it is the case of the respondent that the load conditions in the area t: are such at present, that any fresh connection to commercial premises d in the vicinity will create further deterioration in the supply conditions of residential bungalows besides the danger of excessive sparks and a the likelihood of fire. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereafter referred to as the Act) which provides that where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licence, be entitled on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply; Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive from a licensee a supply of energy for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such minimum annual sum as will give a reasonable return on the capital expenditure, and will cover standing charges incurred by him in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises, the sum payable to be determined in case of difference of dispute by arbitration. The implication of section 22 is that a person is entitled to the supply of electricity. However, it is stated by the respondent that as the sufficient power is not available, therefore, it cannot be supplied to the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to Schedule VI which stipulates that where after distributing mains have laid down under the provisions of clause IV or clause V and the supply of energy through those mains or any of them has commenced a requisition is made by the owner or occupier of any premises situate within the area of supply requiring the licensee to supply energy for such premises, the licensee shall within one month from the making of the requisition or within such longer period as the Electric Inspector may allow supply and save in, so far as he is prevented from doing so by cyclones, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control, continue to supply, energy in accordance with the requisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made emphasis on Schedule VI and stated that the respondent was bound to supply electricity connection and make necessary arrangement within one month from the making of the requisition and as repeated applications have been made by the petitioner, therefore, the respondent is bound to provide him with electricity connection as contained in section 22 read with the Schedule. The learned counsel has also stated that the respondent has supplied electricity connection to a number of concerns for commercial purposes but Mr. Noorul Hassan learned counsel for the respondent has disputed this fact. 3. We would not enter into the factual controversy because it requires further enquiry. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is for the respondents to move the Inspector, therefore, this petition may be allowed. We are afraid we cannot grant this relief as the petitioner may move the Inspector if the respondents are not complying with the provisions of the Act. The respondent's counsel has undertaken to give the connection to the petitioner when the load and he is running the petrol pump. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is suffering a loss of Rs.10,000 per day due to the non‑supply of electricity as he has to operate his own generator. If this is the grievance of the petitioner then he should approach the civil Court for getting relief by way of damages. While dismissing the above petition we make a direction, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that as soon as the position of energy is improved the petitioner may be supplied the energy as required under section 22 of the Act. With this observation the petition is dismissed with no order at to costs. A.A. Petition dismissed.