2010 PLP 1876 (YLR)

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of Writ Petitions bearing No.180 of 2006 and No.10 of 2007, which relates to one and the same matter.

2. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parities and have also gone through the record.

3. Brief facts are that a civil suit was filed by Shah Jehan petitioner in the Civil Court for declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed in his favour on 20-2-2004. Both the parties assailed the said judgment before learned District Judge but he did not entertain the same on the ground of jurisdiction and both the parties were directed to approach the proper forum.

4. Again both the parties impugned the judgment of learned District Judge through Regular First Appeal No.8/2004 and Civil Revision No.381/2004 before this Court. After hearing the parties, this Court vide judgment dated 22-11-2005 returned both the matters to the petitioners for its presentation to the Electric Inspector in accordance with section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

5. The petitioner Shah Jehan moved the Electric Inspector to Government N.-W.F.P. through submitting complaint. The said complaint was decided by the said forum on 19-5-2006 by partially accepting it. The said judgment was again assailed through an appeal by petitioner Shah Jehan before Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Irrigation & Power Department, who vide his order, dated 4-7-2006, upheld the order of Electric Inspector to Government of N.-W.F.P. Later on through order dated 18-7-2006, the earlier order was amended and the words (the appeal is accepted), was substituted by words, "the appeal is not accepted".

6. All the above orders i.e. Electric Inspector to Government N.-W.F.P. and order passed by Secretary to Government N.-W.F.P., Irrigation & Power Department have been challenged through these two writ petitions.

7. Both the learned counsel contended that both the orders are illegal because the Electric -Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction.

8. We may refer to section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the said section is reproduced as below:- "Where any difference or dispute arises between a licensee and a consumer as to whether any meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus is or is not correct the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electric Inspector, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such application after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and where the meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus has, in the opinion of Electric Inspector, ceased to be correct, the Electric Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time as the meter, indicator or apparatus has not, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, been correct; and where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the licensee or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final: Provided that, before either a licensee or a consumer applied to the Electric Inspector under this subsection he shall give to the other party not less than seven days notice of this intention so to do".

9. The above provisions of law shows that any dispute between the parties regarding meter shall be adjudicated upon by Electric Inspector within a period of ninety days. The matter to be decided by Electric Inspector under this section is regarding as to whether any meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus is or is not correct. So the Electric Inspector cannot go beyond the above limits.

10. We have to find out as to whether the decision made by Electric Inspector in his order dated 19-5-2006 is in accordance with subsection (6) of section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 or not. The last Para of the impugned order shows that he has given findings in this matter which hardly touches the issue within his jurisdiction. The Electric Inspector could only entertain and decide the matter under section 26 (6) of Electricity Act, 1910, relating the meter correctness and consequent determination thereto and no other dispute. Reference may be given to 2001 YLR 782.

11. Similar is the fate of the order of appellate authority who once accepted the appeal and then by subsequent order dismissed it. The order of the appellate authority is also illegal because while altering/modifying his earlier order he failed to provide opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party. Thus the Electric Inspector has trespassed his domain by exercising jurisdiction not vested in him.

12. The upshot of our above discussion is that both the writ petitions are allowed with direction to Electric Inspector to process the complaint of complainant strictly in accordance with the law. H.B.T./134/P Petition allowed.