2010 PLP 1424 (YLR)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Petitioner Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif has impugned through this Constitutional petition the demand notice dated 19-3-2007, issued by respondent No.4 Deputy Manager (Operations), MEPCO, Division Mian Channu, Khanewal, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the cost of transformer to be installed by the respondent MEPCO/WAPDA for supply of electricity to the tube-well of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner being an agriculturist applied for agricultural tube-well connection from the electric line of village Sidhu Pura; respondent No.4 allowed the application and issued demand notice of two kinds, one for Rs.8000, and the other for Rs.10,490, which amounts were deposited by the petitioner in the National Bank Grain Market Branch, Mian Channu on 3-5-2006. The petitioner got connection and continued irrigating his lands from tube-well for which he had got sanctioned the electricity connection and he continued to pay electricity bills and never defaulted. Copies of enormous electricity bills consumed by the petitioner are appended with this petition.

3. Respondent No.4 issued with mala fide intention another demand notice dated 19-3-2007 after near about one year of the earlier demand notice for depositing Rs.1,07,920 within one month by deducting 'the amounts which the petitioner had already deposited in the name of WAPDA/ MBPCO on 3-5-2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second demand notice dated 19-3-2007 for deposit of Rs.1,07,920 is based on mala fide. Contended that at the time of sanction of connection of electricity for the tube-well the respondent WAPDA officials did not mention any such thing that after near about one year there will further demand for deposit of Rs.1,07,920.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent MEPCO/ WAPDA submitted that WAPDA Officials illegally sanctioned the electricity connection to the petitioner. At that time WAPDA Authority had withdrawn the former policy for sanctioning of electricity connection for tube-well from the transformers which were installed for electrification of village/town. On account of this illegal sanctioning of electricity connection for the petitioner disciplinary action was taken against the responsible officials and the officials Deputy Manager was reverted and penalized and was taken to task. Submitted that the order of sanction was illegal so the petitioner cannot gain benefit on the basis of illegal order. He made reliance on the cases reported in 2005 SCMR 1814 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department Karachi and 3 others 2007 SCMR 907.

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on account of the act of public functionaries or officials the petitioner cannot be penalized. It was obligatory duty of MEPCO/WAPDA officials to check each and every thing at the time of sanctioning of the electricity connection and what were necessities which were required to be fulfilled by the consumers. WAPDA Authorities executed an agreement with the petitioner. Now issuing fresh demand notice for deposit of Rs.1,07,920 is illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The stance of the petitioner is correct. Once the electricity connection was sanctioned and issued demand notice for deposit of Rs.10,490, I after one year new demand for deposit of Rs.1,07,920 is highly excessive, harsh and exorbitant for a small agriculturist when this section of life is already in big crisis, so on account of any omission or illegal act of the officials of WAPDA the petitioner cannot be burdened without any lawful justification. The notice dated 19-3-2007 issued by the respondent MEPCO for deposit of Rs.1,07,920 is declared illegal and without 'lawful authority and the same is struck down. The respondents are further directed to continue supply of electricity to the petitioner-consumer for his tube-well.

8. With the above observation and direction this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. M.U.Y./A-25/L Petition allowed.