2019 PLP 316 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.

The constitution petition, filed by respondent No.1, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2018 in line with appellants' claim that respondent No.1 has alternate remedy before the NEPRA, with the direction to the office to transmit copy of the same along with all its annexures at the expense of said respondent to NEPRA for its decision treating it as representation of the writ petitioner within a period of fifteen days, however, disconnected electricity of respondent No.1 was ordered to be restored.

2. The appellant has brought this appeal being aggrieved from part of the order whereby direction to the department has been issued for restoration of respondent No.1's electricity connection on the ground that when the matter was referred to the competent authority then restoration order was uncalled for and beyond the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. While relying on Balochistan Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and another (1998 SCMR 1899) contends that it was out of scope of learned Judge-in-Chamber to grant the relief to the writ petitioner when his default was manifest, therefore, the order impugned is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further relies on United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCMR 68) to contend that the interim relief in the nature of final conclusion cannot be granted.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the available record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant when confronted that, 'whether the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) is defaulter', he concedes that this Company is not defaulter and its other units are defaulter and for recovery of that default amount, respondent No.1 had been burdened with the consequence that his electricity was disconnected. When further confronted that according to Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the notice of shifting of liability of other unit of the company has been issued, he by referring the notices attached with the written reply filed by the appellant during pendency of writ petition (at Pages 36 and 37) contends that the said notices were issued but perusal of same reveals that those notices do not fulfill the requirement as stipulated in Section 24(1) ibid. Therefore, these notices could not be termed/treated notices as specified under Section 24(1) of Electricity Act, 1910 inasmuch as without adopting the said procedure respondent No.1 could not be treated defaulter. Clear and obvious requirement of law is that if any unit out of total units becomes defaulter, the said liability can be recovered from running units provided owned by the same person but after adopting the mechanism mandated in law, of course for that purpose the default amount of default unit may be shifted upon the running units by informing the owner in this regard through written notice/letter in an unequivocal manner and on the basis of shifting of liability the said running units be declared non-payer, where-after notice be issued for recovery of the outstanding amount from the running unit as stipulated under Section 24(1) of the Act, 1910, but here admittedly the said requirement of law has not been complied with, therefore, notice issued to respondent No.1 by the appellants, referred to by the learned counsel, could not be presumed to have fulfilled the essential requirement of law; hence ignored and for this probable reason, although not disclosed in the order of the learned Judge-in-Chamber, the restoration of electricity connection was ordered. The case-law, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguish-able on facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. This appeal is dismissed-in-limine being not maintainable. SA/M-160/L Appeal dismissed.