2000 PLP 1991 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1991 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1991 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1991 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1991 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif‑ul‑Haq Ziay for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 26(6)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Correction of electricity bill‑‑‑Petitioner had called in question correction and legality of electricity bill issued to him by Authority on grounds which were purely factual‑‑‑Such factual matter could not be determined without investigation and enquiry which could not ordinarily be made under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Petitioner had adequate alternative . remedy to approach either Electric Inspector under S.26(6), Electricity Act, 1910 or Civil Court under S.9 of C.P.C. or to make a representation to Executive Engineer.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 26(6)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Correction of electricity bill‑‑‑Petitioner had called in question correction and legality of electricity bill issued to him by Authority on grounds which were purely factual‑‑‑Such factual matter could not be determined without investigation and enquiry which could not ordinarily be made under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Petitioner had adequate alternative . remedy to approach either Electric Inspector under S.26(6), Electricity Act, 1910 or Civil Court under S.9 of C.P.C. or to make a representation to Executive Engineer. Saif‑ul‑Haq Ziay for Petitioner. The petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of impugned bill issued by respondents, whereby the petitioner is‑ required to pay a sum of Rs.28,292 on the grounds which are purely factual and cannot be determined without investigation and enquiry. Such investigation cannot ordinarily be made under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. Even otherwise, the petitioner has adequate‑ alternative . remedy within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution to approach either the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 or the Court of general jurisdiction, viz_ Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Electric Inspector or the Civil Court in the respective sphere of their jurisdiction which are competent to investigate the questions of fact and determine the controversy. Recourse to this Court in A these circumstances, is illegal.
3. Additionally, if so advised, the petitioner can also make a representation to the Executive Engineer, which officer is equally competent to investigate the questions raised and decide them after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/affected party. The said officer is directed to dispose of the representation expeditiously. During the pendency of representation the Authority may also consider the suitability of grant of interim relief. Remaining dissatisfied with the decision in the department, the petitioner can judicially approach the Electric Inspector or the Civil Court, as indicated above. 4.With the above observation/direction this petition is disposed of Copy Dasti. H.B.T./M‑1198/L Order accordingly.