1989 PLP 1613 (MLD)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioner owns an agricultural farm at Damloti Deh Mal, Malir, Karachi and has an electric connection having consumer No.PP044175 and account No.2019015500204. According to the petitioner he used to pay the electricity charges regularly according to the monthly bills submitted by the respondents. The petitioner claims that he was paying the bills regularly but on 27-4-1985 the respondents changed the electric meter and in its place installed a new meter. On 24th June, 1985, the petitioner complained to the respondents that the new meter installed by them is defective and is showing reading more than what was consumed. By a. payment slips dated 26th December, 1985, the respondents demanded from the petitioner gross amount of Rs. 1,37,733 being the payment due from him. This amount was sought to be as arrears from June, 1983 to April. 1985. The Petitioner protested and ultimately filed this petition. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that the petitioner meter had been tampered with and, therefore, it was removed and a new meter was installed. After taking reading of the new meter for several months when average was calculated it was found that the old metre was showing less reading than the actual consumption and was tampered with. Therefore, on the basis of the average calculated according to the new meter the bill was sent in respect o; June, 1983 to April, 1985. Mr. Z.P. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that denial: for the additional amount in respect of the months for which the bills have be paid is unlawful and without any basis. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Noorual Hasan; learned counsel for the respondents has contended that it is on the basis of the finding of the respondents, that the old meter had been tampered with; the bill was prepared on the basis of the average calculated by obtaining reading of the new meter. The basic question involved in the matter is a factual dispute regarding tampering of the meter and also the allegation of the petitioner that the new peter installed also does not give correct reading. In our view, in the present proceedings it is not possible to determine such disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and also technical examination of the meters. To meet such a situation the Electricity Act, 1910 provides under section 26 subsection (6) that such dispute can be referred to an Electric Inspector upon an application by either party who will determine the dispute within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of application and all the parties will be given an opportunity of being heard. In our view, efficacious remedy is provided under the Act itself. Mr. Z.P Naqvi, states that he is prepared to file an application before the Electric Inspector for settlement of the dispute with .the respondents. The petitioner has deposited the amount demanded by the respondents in Court, which has been invested in the Khas Deposit Certificates. Mr Noorul Hassan has pointed out, that under section 24(2), 50% of the disputed amount has to be deposited with the Electric Inspector. In the present case, the petitioner has deposited the same in this Court, which has been invested by the Nazir in Khas Deposit Certificates. The petitioner is agreeable to refer the matter to the Electric Inspector but he will be required to deposit 50% of the amount demanded by the respondents. As the amount is lying deposited in this Court, we would in the interest of justice retain 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner and profit accrued on it and the remaining 50% of the amount and profit shall be paid to the petitioner. The amount so deposited in this Court shall remain till such time the decision is given by the Electric Inspector and until further orders. As and when an application as provided by section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 is filed, the Electric Inspector shall not insist on deposit of 50% as the same is lying in Court and shall be treated as deposit under section 26(6). Vile expect that Electric Inspector will hear and decide the matter within the time specified in the Act itself. The petitioner undertakes to file application before the Electric Inspector within two weeks. Under these circumstances, the respondents shall not disconnect the electricity connection till the final decision of the Electric Inspector. Subject to these observations and in the afore stated terms, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M-758/K Petition dismissed.